NLRB Finds Non-Union Employer's Policies Unlawful
February 4, 2013
On January 25, 2013, the same day that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the recess appointments of Richard Griffin and Sharon Block were unconstitutional, National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") Members Griffin, Block, and Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce held, in DirectTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings, LLC, that several seemingly neutral and reasonable employer policies promulgated in a non-union setting unlawfully restricted protected activity in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").
The first policy, contained in the employee handbook, instructed employees in part: "Do not contact the media." The NLRB found this portion of the policy to be overly broad and unlawful because employee communication with newspaper reporters about labor disputes is protected activity under the NLRA, and the NLRB believed that employees would reasonably construe the rule to prohibit such protected communication.
The second policy, posted on the employer's intranet, provided in part: "Employees should not contact or comment to any media about the company unless pre-authorized by Public Relations." The NLRB determined that this rule was overly broad and unlawful for the same reason as the first policy. The NLRB further held that "any rule that requires employees to secure permission from their employer as a precondition to engaging in protected concerted activity on an employee's free time and in non-work areas is unlawful."
The third policy, contained in the employee handbook, provided in part: "If law enforcement wants to interview or obtain information regarding a DIRECTV employee . . . the employee should contact the security department in El Segundo, Calif., who will handle contact with law enforcement agencies and any needed coordination with DIRECTV departments." The NLRB interpreted the term "law enforcement" to include not only the police and representatives of other criminal law enforcement agencies, but also NLRB agents. Accordingly, the NLRB concluded that this rule was unlawful because employees would reasonably believe that they were required to contact the employer's security department before cooperating with an NLRB investigation.
The fourth policy, contained in the employee handbook, instructed employees in part: "Never discuss details about your job, company business or work projects with anyone outside the company" and "Never give out information about customers or DIRECTV employees." The rule included "employee records" as a category of confidential information that could not be discussed or disclosed. The NLRB found this rule to be unlawful because employees would reasonably understand the rule to restrict discussion of their wages and other terms and conditions of employment. The NLRB also held that the rule did not exempt protected communications with third parties such as union representatives, NLRB agents, or other government agencies investigating workplace matters.
The fifth policy, posted on the employer's intranet, provided in part: "Employees may not blog, enter chat rooms, post messages on public websites or otherwise disclose company information that is not already disclosed as a public record." The NLRB found this rule to be unlawful, because it determined that employees would reasonably interpret "company information" to include information regarding their wages, discipline, performance ratings, and other terms and conditions of employment.
This decision demonstrates that the NLRB is determined to continue its focus on protected activity in non-union settings, and to strike down workplace policies and rules that it believes restrict such protected activity. In light of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision invalidating the recess appointments of Members Griffin and Block, it is not clear whether this decision will have any precedential effect. Nevertheless, employers should carefully examine their own policies to determine whether any revisions or clarifications are necessary before those policies are challenged.
