Category: NLRB

Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations

NLRB Restores Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations

A December 16, 2019 NLRB decision reinstated employers’ discretion to maintain confidentiality in workplace investigations. In 2015 the federal Labor Board had found that employees’ rights to communicate with each other generally trumped company secrecy in this area. The new ruling allows investigatory confidentiality to be the default, rather than the exception.

Previous Standard

In 2015, an Obama-era NLRB panel with a Democrat majority held companies to the burden of demonstrating a specific need for confidentiality regarding a particular investigation. In other words, the default was the employers could not force employees to keep quiet about an ongoing internal inquiry.

Under the Banner Estrella Medical Center ruling, employers could only require confidentiality upon affirmative evidence that:

  • witnesses need protection;
  • evidence is in danger of destruction;
  • testimony is in danger of fabrication; or
  • there is a need to prevent a cover-up.

In that decision, the Board found that, absent these factors, employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act outweighed company interests in preserving the integrity of an investigation. Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees who engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection regarding terms and conditions of employment.

Concern with Lack of Confidentiality

A strenuous critique of the Banner Estrella Medical Center decision was that it was inconsistent with EEOC guidance encouraging confidentiality in workplace investigations. Specifically including investigations of sexual harassment, the EEOC has long emphasized that employer procedures for resolving internal complaints “should ensure confidentiality as much as possible. . . .”

Over the past few years, the EEOC and NLRB have attempted to reconcile their inconsistent stances. The new NLRB position eliminates the conflict between these federal agencies.

Changing the Presumption (Back)

The NLRB’s 3-1 decision in a case involving Unique Thrift Store once again permits employers to ask their employees to keep investigations confidential. They can do so as the default, without first evaluating prescribed criteria.

Unique Thrift Store maintained the following work rules for employees:

  • “Reporting persons and those who are interviewed are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding these investigations.”
  • “The following list . . . are examples of behaviors that . . . may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination . . . . Refusing to courteously cooperate in any company investigation. This includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized discussion of investigation or interview with other team members . . . .”

The Board majority overruled the Banner Estrella standard, in part, for its failure “to consider the importance of confidentiality assurances to both employers and employees during an ongoing investigation.”

Open Question on Investigatory Confidentiality Rules

The NLRB’s 2019 Unique Thrift Store decision didn’t actually determine whether the above rules are lawful. The Board withheld ultimate judgment in that regard because the rules themselves weren’t clearly limited to the duration of an investigation. In other words, they arguably required employees to keep quiet even after the company had completed its investigation.

The Board did not feel it had enough information to evaluate whether Unique Thrift Store had sufficient justification for requiring post-investigation confidentiality. So, it sent the case back down for further proceedings regarding that question.

Impact on Employers

Under this new ruling, companies can go back to directing employees to maintain confidentiality during an investigation. They can generally implement and enforce written rules to that effect. But they should be careful in the wording of such rules and directives. Requiring employees to stay silent even after an investigation has concluded may be more problematic. In that situation, your company should evaluate the specific circumstances and, ideally, consult with an experienced labor attorney.

Receive more updates on labor and employment law from Horton Law PLLC. Follow us on LinkedIn or subscribe to our free email newsletter.

Click for the full decision in:

Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019)

Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB 1108 (2015)

Company Email Use

Employers Regain Control Over Company Email Use

Say “goodbye” to Purple Communications and “hello” to Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino. On December 17, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board released a new ruling about employees’ company email use. Specifically, the NLRB reversed a 2014 decision that had granted some employees the right to use their work email account for certain non-work purposes. What does this mean? And how long will it last?

Purple Communications Limited Private Company Property Rights

In December 2014, the NLRB decided a case involving Purple Communications. That decision gave a colorful name to a surprising encroachment on private companies’ control over their email systems.

A divided 3-2 Board for the first time ruled that employees had a federally-protected right to use their company work emails to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. That refers to employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. It’s the law that allows employees to join unions. And it also allows them to engage in other forms of joint activities toward improving their work conditions.

Three Democratic NLRB members comprised the Purple Communications majority. The two Republican members dissented.

The majority identified some limitations on their 2014 ruling:

  • “First, it applies only to employees who have already been granted access to the employer’s email system in the course of their work and does not require employers to provide such access.”
  • “Second, an employer may justify a total ban on nonwork use of email, including Section 7 use on nonworking time, by demonstrating that special circumstances make the ban necessary to maintain production or discipline. Absent justification for a total ban, the employer may apply uniform and consistently enforced controls over its email system to the extent such controls are necessary to maintain production and discipline.”

Employer Property Interest Overtakes Employee Interests

A 3-1 Republican NLRB majority has reaffirmed that federal law doesn’t entitle employees to use employer-owned equipment for non-work purposes.

The NLRB now holds that employers can restrict employees’ company email use for non-work purposes, including activity otherwise protected by Section 7.

The Board majority observed that “in modern workplaces employees also have access to smartphones, personal email accounts, and social media, which provide additional avenues of communication, including for Section 7–related purposes”. They did, however, allow that there might be an unusual workplace devoid of such alternative means of communication. There, perhaps, Section 7 rights might trump the employer’s property rights. But the majority did not attempt to hypothesize such a scenario.

On the last day of her term, outgoing Democrat Member Lauren McFarren dissented. She contends, “The majority’s decision aims to turn back the clock on the ability of employees to communicate with each other at work . . . .”

A Philosophical Divide

As with many questions under federal labor law, the NLRB’s ruling on this issue reflects a partisan debate. Several other decisions issued around the same day as Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino demonstrate the same reality. Democrats and Republicans read the National Labor Relations Act differently. As a result, NLRB precedent may only last slightly longer than a Presidential term. Purple Communications, for example, was the law of the land for almost exactly five years.

Should Employers Change Their Policies?

If you had proactively responded to the NLRB’s 2014 pronouncement that employees had a right to use their work email for non-work purposes, then you might have changed or adopted written policies to that end. If so, you could consider revising those policies again. But it’s not a decision to be made automatically.

Employers who, for example, already allow employees to use work emails for a range of personal communications, should be cautious in how they suddenly limit that freedom. If nothing else, a strict contrary policy could anger and alienate employees. In extreme cases, it might even contribute to the type of employee dissatisfaction that contributes to unionization efforts. You probably don’t want that. (Read: Are Unions Bad? 4 Tips for Employers)

And if you do change your company email use policy or practice now, make sure to keep your ears open for the next time Democrats are in the majority on the NLRB.

To stay up-to-day on important labor law topics, sign up for our email newsletter here or follow us on LinkedIn!

Dues Checkoff

Employers Can Again Stop Union Dues Checkoff Under Expired CBA

In a December 16, 2019 decision, the National Labor Relations Board reverted to a legal principle that had stood for over 50 years. In 2015, the NLRB ruled that employers could no longer discontinue a union dues checkoff after a collective bargaining agreement had expired. Now a 3-1 Board majority restores the long-established standard from a 1962 case.

What Is Dues Checkoff?

Dues checkoff refers to the practice of deducting union dues from employees’ pay and remitting the money to the union. This practice is legal where the union and employer have agreed to it and employees have signed dues-deduction authorizations. Unions usually seek and obtain authorizations from most, if not all, bargaining unit members.

Unions typically bargain for provisions requiring employers to make a dues checkoff. This is at least an administrative convenience for unions. Otherwise, they would need to obtain the dues money directly from individual employees.

Legal Debate

Generally, many provisions of a collective bargaining agreement continue past contract expiration if no successor contract is in place. This results from the obligation to maintain the status quo on terms and conditions of employment. The employer can only make unilateral changes after contract expiration if it first bargains to impasse over desired changes.

There are exceptions to this unilateral change doctrine. These historically have included contract provisions for no-strike/lockout pledges, arbitration, management rights, union security, and dues checkoff.

In a 1962 case involving Bethlehem Steel, the NLRB found that dues checkoff was solely a contractual right that ends upon contract expiration. That analysis governed until 2015. Then, an Obama-era NLRB majority reasoned that “[u]nlike no-strike, arbitration, and management-rights clauses, a dues-checkoff provision in a collective-bargaining agreement does not involve the contractual surrender of any statutory or nonstatutory right be a party to the agreement”. The Board, in Lincoln Lutheran, continued, “similar to other voluntary checkoff agreements, such as employee savings accounts and charitable contributions, which the Board has recognized also create ‘administrative convenience’ and, notably, survive the contracts that establish them.”

New Ruling

In a case involving Valley Hospital Medical Center, the NLRB now reinstates the holding of the 1962 Bethlehem Steel case.

The Republican Board majority (all appointed by President Trump) reiterates that there would be no obligation to checkoff dues unless there is a contractual agreement to do so. Thus, once a contract including that obligation expires, the employer has no further duty to withhold and remit dues.

The Board’s lone Democratic member (whose term expired the day of this decision) strenuously objected. She argues that the majority’s analysis is “irrational” and “serves no legitimate statutory purpose.”

Ultimately, it’s tough to deny the purely partisan rift in opinion on this subject. Union dues checkoff is one of many areas where pro-business Republicans and pro-labor Democrats interpret the National Labor Relations Act differently. As such, future oscillation on this and other essential aspects of federal labor law is predictable.

Impact of New Dues Checkoff Rule

Under this latest ruling, employers have the (current) NLRB’s backing to stop a dues checkoff during periods of contract expiration. Employers must, of course, still negotiate in good faith for a new collective bargaining agreement. Assuming a new contract is reached, the company will likely have to reinstate the checkoff (barring the unlikely prospect of an agreement to remove it from the CBA.)

Note that even if the company ends the dues checkoff, the union may still collect dues directly from their members.