Search form

Employers Take Note: Labor Board Poised to Reverse Additional Obama-Era Work Rule Interpretations

By Philip B. Rosen, Howard M. Bloom and Robert H. Morsilli
  • February 9, 2018

The National Labor Relations Board has taken another giant step toward repudiating the Obama-era Board’s highly restrictive interpretations of work rules, set forth in Lutheran Heritage-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004).

In Grill Concepts Services, Inc. v. NLRB, Nos. 16-1238, 1287, at the Board’s request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded to the Board for consideration of the legality of several work rules the Board had determined violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Grill Concepts Services, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 36 (2016). The remand for reconsideration was based on the Board’s December 2017 decision in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154.

Under The Boeing Co., the NLRB announced it had rescinded its test for determining the legality of facially neutral work rules (asking whether those rules can be “reasonably construed” by an employee to prohibit the exercise of concerted, protected activity). Instead, the Board will consider whether facially neutral rules, when reasonably interpreted, potentially would interfere with NLRA Section 7 rights to engage in “concerted activities.” The Board will analyze (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on employees’ NLRA rights, and (ii) the employer’s legitimate justifications for maintaining the rules.

The remand bears close watching because the rules the NLRB will be reconsidering under The Boeing Co. test are similar to those that many employers maintain now or modified or eliminated because of the Obama Board’s crackdown pursuant to the “reasonably construed” standard articulated in Lutheran Heritage-Livonia.

Legality of Rules

The Board will review the legality of the following rules (or portions thereof), various versions of which the Obama Board often found unlawful. (The specific language to be reviewed is shown in italics):

Team Member Relations/Positive Culture

[The Employer] believes that the working conditions, wages, and benefits offered to Team Members are competitive with those offered by other employers in this area and in this industry. If Team Members have concerns about working conditions, wages or benefits, they are encourage[d] to voice these concerns openly, respectfully and directly to their General Managers or if necessary, the Regional/Area Director or with the People Department.


The Timekeeping Rule

Please DO NOT loiter on restaurant property when not working. While off the clock and waiting to punch in, Team Members should not be in the restaurant earlier than 15 minutes prior to their scheduled starting time nor should they remain more than 15 minutes after they clock out.


Team Member Conduct While Representing the Restaurant

Team Members must refrain from any negative behaviors (as listed in this manual) off the property while representing the Restaurant. The Restaurant reserves the right to counsel any Team Member who jeopardizes the welfare and/or reputations of the Restaurant up to and including termination of employment.


Online Communications

***

2. Accurate Information…. Team Members and other company representatives may not knowingly communication information that is untrue or deceptive.

***

4. Protection of Confidential and Proprietary Information…. Team members and other company representatives must maintain the confidentiality of information [Employer] considered confidential, including the company data, Guest data, partner and/or supplier data, personal Team Member data, and any information not generally available to the public.


Progressive Discipline: Gross Misconduct

A Team Member may be terminated for cause without prior warning for committing any conduct issues as listed as Gross Misconduct. Gross Misconduct issues include … failure to participate in or intentional falsification of a statement during a formal company investigation; … unauthorized disclosure of confidential or privileged information concerning company or Team Members.

The Court of Appeals also remanded the Board’s finding that a provision in the employer’s Dispute Resolution Arbitration Agreement subjecting “employment-related disputes” to arbitration violated Section 8(a)(1) because it could be reasonably construed to require arbitration of unfair labor practice charges.

Legitimate Employer Interests

In many instances, the Obama-era Board appeared to disregard legitimate employer interests in maintaining work rules similar to those above. Therefore, many employers weakened their work rules to an extent that their continuing usefulness was questionable. The Boeing Co. decision and the Board’s remand request in Grill Concepts Services signals that employers once again may maintain work rules that will serve their legitimate interests.

While we expect the Board to pursue a balanced approach when considering the validity of work rules, this remains a complicated, highly fact-intensive area of the law. Employers should seek appropriate legal review of any work rule that may implicate employee rights under Section 7 of the Act.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 15, 2019

Labor Board Returns to Pre-2014 Test for Determining if Individual Is an Independent Contractor

February 15, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that in deciding whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee, it will return to focusing on the extent to which the arrangement between the ostensible employer and the alleged employee provided an “entrepreneurial opportunity” to the individual, overruling a 2014... Read More

February 14, 2019

Top Five Labor Law Developments for January 2019

February 14, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reinstated its pre-2014 standard for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee. SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (Jan. 25, 2019). The NLRB determined that the employer’s shuttle van drivers were not employees, but independent contractors. Thus, they... Read More

January 29, 2019

Labor Board Narrows What May Be Considered Concerted Activity

January 29, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has narrowed the circumstances under which a complaint made by an individual employee is considered concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Alstate Maintenance, LLC, 367 NLRB No. 68 (Jan. 11, 2019). In doing so, the Board reaffirmed and applied the... Read More

Related Practices