Search form

NLRA Handbook Disclaimers May Be Effective After All, Board's General Counsel Suggests

By Philip B. Rosen and Howard M. Bloom
  • December 27, 2012

A recent Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel's Office Division of Advice may cause employers to consider including a National Labor Relations Act-related disclaimer in their employee handbook or human resources policies. 

In Cox Communications, 17-CA-087612 (2012), the employer’s social media policy contained three provisions, the legality of which had been challenged by an employee who had been terminated for violating the policy. The employee filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer alleging the policy was unlawful under the NLRA and, therefore, his termination for violating the policy also was unlawful. Following investigation of the charge, the Board's Regional office asked the Division of Advice for an opinion on whether to issue a complaint. 

 The Division decided the questionable provisions did not violate the NLRA because they would not “reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” More notably, however, the Division also discussed the inclusion of the following disclaimer (which it called a “savings clause”) in the policy:

Nothing in Cox’s social media policy is designed to interfere with, restrain, or prevent employee communications regarding wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. Cox Employees have the right to engage in or refrain from such activities.

Regarding the effect of the disclaimer on the legality of the three questionable provisions, the Division of Advice noted:

[The] . . . savings clause . . . further ensures that employees would not reasonably interpret any potentially ambiguous provision in a way that would restrict Section 7 activity.

This appears to be the first time an NLRA disclaimer has been given any weight in an agency determination about a social media or other employer policy. The Division has reviewed at least one other, less-specific disclaimer (i.e., the policy “will be administered in compliance with applicable laws and regulations . . . including the National Labor Relations Act”) and decided it was ineffective to cure ambiguities in an employer rule. Unlike that disclaimer, however, the Cox provision specifically described a key element of Section 7 rights – the right of employees to communicate about “wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.”

Although it is clear the Division would have decided the policy in Cox was lawful in any event, the disclaimer adds a distinctive note to its approval. For that reason, employers should consider including similarly specific language in particular policies that may raise legal concern under the NLRA. (Since the disclaimer was included in a specific policy, it remains an open question whether the Division of Advice would comment favorably on a similar disclaimer that is included only at the beginning or end of a handbook.) However, the inclusion of this disclaimer is not a substitute for a thorough legal review of employer policies and rules for NLRA compliance.

If you have any questions about this or other workplace developments, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. 

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 28, 2015

Labor Board Sets New Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status

August 28, 2015

A sharply divided National Labor Relations Board has announced a new standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015). One of the most significant decisions issued by the Board in recent years, it is likely to impact the... Read More

August 17, 2015

NLRB Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Student-Athletes’ Attempt to Unionize – For Now

August 17, 2015

Concluding that its assertion of jurisdiction “would not serve to promote stability in labor relations,” the National Labor Relations Board has declined to exercise authority over the College Athletes Players Association’s (CAPA’s) petition to represent scholarship football players at Northwestern University.... Read More

July 30, 2015

NLRB Doubles Down In Curbing Secrecy of Employer Investigations

July 30, 2015

In a case with potentially far-reaching implications, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a decision invalidating a confidentiality policy similar to that applied by many employers during workplace investigations. Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 137 (June 26, 2015). The decision... Read More

Related Practices