Labor: Is your handbook ready for 2012?
Companies should look at three policies in particular as they head into the new year.
November 07, 2011 at 07:13 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Fall is usually the time of year that employers dust off their handbooks for revision and review in time for the coming year. As we review 2011, there are a few policies that employers should consider adding to their handbooks in 2012.
1. Social Media Policy: Employee use of social media can affect the workplace. Whether it is Facebook, LinkedIn or blogging, employers need to establish guidelines regarding do's and don'ts for employees in the social media arena. At a minimum, social media policies should address the following issues:
- Are employees permitted to access social media while using company resources, such as company-issued laptops, iPhones or desktop computers?
- If so, what are the limits regarding employee access during working time?
- Are there restrictions on an employee's use of social media while the employee is off-duty and using personal resources?
- If so, what are the limits regarding disclosure of company information?
- If so, what are the limits regarding commentary about the company?
- What should an employee do if subjected to harassment by coworkers via social media?
- Should supervisors “friend” subordinates?
During 2011, the NLRB launched a campaign against employers who discipline employees for violating social media policies that ban certain behavior. The NLRB believes that such policies go too far and suppress workers' NLRA rights. Employers are well-advised to narrowly draft social media policies so as not to chill an employee's ability to voice legitimate workplace complaints.
In light of this, employers may consider adding a disclaimer that makes it clear that nothing in the handbook is intended to interfere with employee's NLRA rights.
2. iPhone/Blackberry Policies: The company's old cellphone policy probably needs updating. Now more than ever before, employees are texting, emailing, picture-taking and even making videos on their mobile devices. Such policies may vary depending upon whether the device is personal or company-owned.
For example, if a device is company-owned, the employer may want to give employees notice that there is no expectation of privacy regarding use of that device and, as such, that the company may review text messages and other communications made by an employee at any time.
Safety issues are another major concern. More and more employers are banning the use of mobile devices while employees are driving during the course of employment—or requiring the use of hands-free devices.
3. Reasonable Accommodation: By now all employers should know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), which expanded the definition of “disability.” In 2011, the EEOC issued its new regulations regarding the ADAAA and now, when investigating an employee's claim for reasonable accommodation, the EEOC routinely asks to review an employer's policy in this area.
Such policies should, at minimum, include the following:
- A statement regarding the employer's willingness to accommodate employees and applicants
- The procedure for requesting an accommodation
- A statement regarding how employee medical-related information is stored and confidentially maintained
Fall is usually the time of year that employers dust off their handbooks for revision and review in time for the coming year. As we review 2011, there are a few policies that employers should consider adding to their handbooks in 2012.
1. Social Media Policy: Employee use of social media can affect the workplace. Whether it is Facebook,
- Are employees permitted to access social media while using company resources, such as company-issued laptops, iPhones or desktop computers?
- If so, what are the limits regarding employee access during working time?
- Are there restrictions on an employee's use of social media while the employee is off-duty and using personal resources?
- If so, what are the limits regarding disclosure of company information?
- If so, what are the limits regarding commentary about the company?
- What should an employee do if subjected to harassment by coworkers via social media?
- Should supervisors “friend” subordinates?
During 2011, the NLRB launched a campaign against employers who discipline employees for violating social media policies that ban certain behavior. The NLRB believes that such policies go too far and suppress workers' NLRA rights. Employers are well-advised to narrowly draft social media policies so as not to chill an employee's ability to voice legitimate workplace complaints.
In light of this, employers may consider adding a disclaimer that makes it clear that nothing in the handbook is intended to interfere with employee's NLRA rights.
2. iPhone/Blackberry Policies: The company's old cellphone policy probably needs updating. Now more than ever before, employees are texting, emailing, picture-taking and even making videos on their mobile devices. Such policies may vary depending upon whether the device is personal or company-owned.
For example, if a device is company-owned, the employer may want to give employees notice that there is no expectation of privacy regarding use of that device and, as such, that the company may review text messages and other communications made by an employee at any time.
Safety issues are another major concern. More and more employers are banning the use of mobile devices while employees are driving during the course of employment—or requiring the use of hands-free devices.
3. Reasonable Accommodation: By now all employers should know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), which expanded the definition of “disability.” In 2011, the EEOC issued its new regulations regarding the ADAAA and now, when investigating an employee's claim for reasonable accommodation, the EEOC routinely asks to review an employer's policy in this area.
Such policies should, at minimum, include the following:
- A statement regarding the employer's willingness to accommodate employees and applicants
- The procedure for requesting an accommodation
- A statement regarding how employee medical-related information is stored and confidentially maintained
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
© 2025 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 AllSpotify GC Steps Down, Opts to 'Step Away From Full-Time Corporate Life'
2 minute readLinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
5 minute readAre Firms and In-House Teams Courting Technological Debt With Ambitious Purchases?
6 minute readStarbucks Hands New CLO Hefty Raise, Says He Fosters 'Environment of Courage and Joy'
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 2Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 3Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 4Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 5Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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