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

July 13, 2016

Overruling Precedent, NLRB Holds Bargaining Units of Jointly and Solely Employed Employees May Elect Union Representative Absent Consent of Their Employers

July 13, 2016

In a departure from more than a decade-long precedent, the National Labor Relations Board has held that Board-conducted representation elections in bargaining units combining employees who are (a) jointly employed by a user employer and supplier employer and (b) solely employed by the user employer do not require the consent of either... Read More

July 8, 2016

NLRB Regional Directors’ Formal Unfair Labor Practices Complaints to be Reported to Federal Database

July 8, 2016

The National Labor Relations Board has stated that it will report to a federal database all unfair labor practice complaints issued by its Regional Directors beginning July 1, 2016, in order to comply with “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673 (which has been called the “blacklisting” executive... Read More

June 27, 2016

Court Halts Labor Department’s New Persuader Rule

June 27, 2016

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor’s “persuader” rule promulgated under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, Civil... Read More

Related Practices