Labor: NLRB says employers cannot ban employee talks of workplace investigations
The NLRB held that Boeings policy directing employees to refrain from discussing workplace investigations with other employees violated federal labor laws.
August 19, 2013 at 06:03 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision affirms that employers may not direct employees involved in workplace investigations to keep the details of those investigations confidential among other employees.
In The Boeing Co., decided July 26, 2013, the NLRB held that Boeing's policy directing employees to refrain from discussing workplace investigations with other employees violated federal labor laws. Additionally, the administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Boeing's updated policy merely “recommending” that employees not discuss investigations was similarly unlawful.
The case concerned a female employee who complained to Boeing that a male coworker and supervisor had made inappropriate comments. The company responded by investigating the incident. Subsequently, the female employee shared her dissatisfaction with the investigation with some of her female coworkers. Boeing caught wind of this and notified the employee that she was in breach of the company's confidentiality policy and issued a formal written warning. However, Boeing rescinded the warning and attempted to modify the confidentiality policy soon after the employee filed her unfair labor practice charge.
Despite softening the policy's language, the court ruled Boeing's policy impermissibly infringed on its employees' rights to discuss among themselves the terms and conditions of their employment. The ALJ rejected the company's argument that merely “recommending” confidentiality avoids violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Rather, the ALJ reasoned that Boeing's recommendation should be treated as a request, and there was nothing in the policy to indicate that employees are free to discuss the investigation and disregard the policy if he or she chooses to do so.
The ALJ also held that Boeing's warning to the employee was unlawful, since it was an act of discipline pursuant to an unlawful policy. Likewise, the company's repudiation of the warning was ineffective to cure its unlawfulness, since it came about seven weeks after it was issued and over a week after the employee filed her unfair labor practice charge. This proved to be not timely enough for the ALJ.
The judge did note, however, the important interests safeguarded by confidentiality, such as the integrity of investigations, preventing workplace retaliation and promoting an environment where employees feel comfortable reporting complaints. However, the judge was compelled by NLRB precedent to rule against Boeing.
Employers must always be mindful of company policies that restrict employees' workplace communications. The NLRA protects employees' rights to engage in “concerted protected activity,” which includes the discussion of terms and conditions of employment among employees. The Boeing case extends these protections to the discussion of workplace investigations and any company policy that purports to prohibit employees from talking about these investigations among themselves will likely be found to violate federal labor laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readTarget's Don Liu: 4 Fortune 500 GC Posts, a Singular Focus on Opening Doors for Asian Americans
9 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250