National Labor Relations Board Continues to Limit Handbook Rules
shutterstock_23384308-1024x699.jpg (shutterstock_23384308-1024x699.jpg)

HR BallThe National Labor Relations Board has been increasingly active in reviewing rules for employee conduct described in personnel policy manuals and handbooks. The NLRB focuses on Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees employee freedom of speech and concerted activity with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment. The NLRB examines handbook rules to determine if they could reasonably be construed by employees to restrict Section 7 rights. The NLRB’s determinations are applicable both to union and non-union employees.

Recently, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the NLRB’s challenge to three rules promulgated by Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc., but upheld a fourth rule.

The first rule concerned investigative confidentiality, and prohibited employees from revealing information about matters under investigation by Hyundai. The NLRB held and the Court agreed that a blanket confidentiality rule clearly limited employees’ rights to discuss their employment. The Court acknowledged the importance of confidentiality in sensitive investigations, such as sexual harassment allegations, but decided that Hyundai’s rule was too broad and undifferentiated. Confidentiality in the context of a particular investigation or particular type of investigation could still be protected.

The next rule limited the disclosure of any information or messages from the company’s electronic communications systems. The Court agreed with the NLRB that such a broad rule could restrict the employees’ right to share information about terms and conditions of their employment. A more narrow rule restricting use of information about customers, business operations, or other employees would be acceptable as not open to interpretation as a ban on an employee’s discussion of the terms and conditions of his or her own employment.

The NLRB and the Court also invalidated a rule against performing activities other than company work during working hours. The NLRB for many years has distinguished between “working hours” and “working time.” Working hours is interpreted as the entire period from the beginning to the end of a shift, included meal time and other breaks. Restrictions on union activity or other concerted activity during working hours are presumptively invalid; similar restrictions during working time are not. Again, this rule was too broad and imprecise.

However, the Court decided that a handbook provision which encouraged employees to bring complaints to their superiors or to human resources through an open door policy, stating than complaining to fellow employees cannot resolve problems, was not too restrictive. The rule urged use of the company’s complaint procedures, but did not prohibit employee speech. Nor were there any penalties for complaints to fellow employees. The Court held that a reasonable employee would not view the rule as prohibiting Section 7 rights.

The obvious theme is that broad prohibitions invite scrutiny, whereas more carefully designed restrictions can be justified as reasonable. Personnel policy manuals and handbooks should be reviewed periodically with this guidance in mind.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts


Jump to Page