Proactive employee relations practices = Lower risk of litigation for manufacturers
Often overlooked, proactive employee relations practices can play the deciding role in helping to prevent or, at a minimum, helping a company successfully and efficiently defend against, a legal claim from a rogue employee.
January 30, 2014 at 03:00 AM
14 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the final column in a three-part series aimed at helping manufacturing companies avoid litigation. In part one, we recommended that companies regularly review their existing insurance policies and programs, with an eye toward previous issues as well as toward future growth and development. In part two, we addressed how manufacturers can accurately assess exposure to risk related to product liability claims.
Just as smart insurance and products liability practices are essential in effective risk management by manufacturers, so are good, proactive employee relations practices. Often overlooked, such practices can play the deciding role in helping to prevent or, at a minimum, helping a company successfully and efficiently defend against, a legal claim from a rogue employee otherwise might be source of tremendous financial, operational and public relations stressors on a company.
From the employee relations perspective, effective risk management must include a thoughtful audit of a company's personnel policies and relevant training history, and a working plan for effective implementation and enforcement going forward.
The easiest place to start an employment audit is by reviewing current employee-related policies. In that respect, a good employee handbook is a must. Though the content of the handbook will differ depending on the culture, needs and locale(s) of a business, every handbook should contain the following “Top-5” policies, and risk managers should ensure they are drafted to comply with applicable law:
1. At-will employment: An employee handbook should convey the general policy of at-will employment, reflecting that either the employer or the employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any lawful reason, with or without notice. While an at-will employment policy has long been the staple of any employee handbook, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently put this policy to the test, questioning whether it might be interpreted as interfering with employees' rights to discuss and attempt to change their work conditions, including through joining a union.
Regardless of whether the company is unionized, a poorly worded at-will policy may draw unwanted attention from the NLRB. Thus, it is important to review the company's at-will policy with fresh eyes to ensure it serves its purpose in a legally compliant manner. On a related note, an employee handbook also should contain a prominent disclaimer that it is not intended and should not be interpreted as creating a contract of employment for any set term; and well-worded disciplinary policies giving management the flexibility to take appropriate corrective action, if, when and as appropriate on a case-by-case basis, without being held to a progressive discipline procedure.
2. Equal employment opportunity / non-discrimination: These policies also are a “must-have” for any employee handbook. Just as it is relatively easy to write these policies correctly, it also is easy to get them wrong, including by failing to include the appropriate protected categories or a mandatory complaint procedure to report any related complaints and concerns.
3. Anti-harassment: A harassment lawsuit, particularly a sexual harassment lawsuit, can involve protracted litigation and greatly damage a company's reputation. An updated, compliant anti-harassment policy should help prevent harassment from occurring and, to the extent such conduct does occur, to mitigate its harmful effects through mandatory internal reporting, investigation and remedial action procedures. In federal litigation, maintaining and consistently enforcing a well-written anti-harassment policy can make all the difference between whether the company will be held liable for the alleged conduct, or whether the suit will be dismissed before it gets to a trial.
4. Wage and hour: Often neglected or boiler-plated in an employee handbook, these policies are essential in establishing and enforcing effective, legal time management and pay practices, and in providing a defense to companies in lawsuits over the payment of wages and benefits. As such claims are frequent contenders for class actions targeting manufacturers given the nature of their business, it is imperative to ensure that the company's wage and hour policies — including policies as to employee classification, recording of time, overtime, and paid time off — are in good working order.
5. Communications systems and social media: In the last two decades, rapidly evolving technologies have entirely transformed how businesses, and their employees, operate and communicate. Yet, incredibly, many companies continue to rely on archaic systems communications policies that focus more on telephones and facsimiles than computer systems, and related email, texts and Internet and social media posts and activities that have come to define modern communication. It is essential to have updated communications systems and, often, social media policies in place, to effectively communicate to employees what they can and cannot do, and what they should expect, relative to privacy and potential disciplinary ramifications when they use company-provided computer communications systems.
It should be noted that such policies have also recently generated a great deal of unwanted attention from the NLRB, so it is important to write them in with the eye toward ensuring that will not be deemed to inappropriately interfere with or chill employees' rights to discuss their terms and conditions of work.
Of course, a good handbook is hardly worth the paper it is written on unless it is consistently and effectively enforced. Policy enforcement should begin with the company's leadership, and specifically the leadership's awareness of and commitment to upholding and enforcing personnel policies in a consistent and effective manner. That requires risk managers to communicate key handbook policies whenever new employees join the company, and also during periodic training intervals thereafter. Though often dreaded, policy training really does not have to be, and should not be, “boring” or “tedious.” If done well, it should be informative and insightful in helping management and subordinate employees to recognize and resolve workplace issues before they turn into legal problems.
Risk management through effective restrictive covenant agreements
In addition to ensuring that the business has solid employment policies and procedures in place, manufacturers should be proactive about the measures being taken to protect the company's proprietary information, products, customers and employees from the competition. Well-drafted, enforced — and enforceable — restrictive covenant agreements are essential in helping a company to achieve these important goals.
In reviewing restrictive covenants, manufacturers should keep in mind that restrictive covenant law is constantly evolving and can vary significantly state-to-state. A restriction that is certain to be upheld in one state may be deemed a patently overbroad and unlawful in another. In Illinois, restrictive covenants have been routinely enforced so long as they have been appropriately tailored in time and scope, and based on a legitimate business interest. Just recently, however, one Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a restrictive covenant will be enforced only if supported by a minimum of two years of continued employment as consideration — an offer of employment or employment lasting less than two years will not suffice.
Thus, crafting an enforceable restrictive covenant is a fine art and should be done by experienced, competent attorneys who are not only familiar with the applicable law, but who will take the time needed to understand the company's business protections appropriately required to stave off harmful disclosure, solicitation and competition activities.
In conclusion, experienced, successful risk managers at manufacturing companies know that effective risk management requires constant vigilance and proactive follow-up. Taking effective, efficient steps now to ensure that the business is protected with appropriate insurance coverage, smart products practices, and working employee relations policies and practices can make all the difference in preventing expensive, protracted and image-damaging legal claims later.
This is the final column in a three-part series aimed at helping manufacturing companies avoid litigation. In part one, we recommended that companies regularly review their existing insurance policies and programs, with an eye toward previous issues as well as toward future growth and development. In part two, we addressed how manufacturers can accurately assess exposure to risk related to product liability claims.
Just as smart insurance and products liability practices are essential in effective risk management by manufacturers, so are good, proactive employee relations practices. Often overlooked, such practices can play the deciding role in helping to prevent or, at a minimum, helping a company successfully and efficiently defend against, a legal claim from a rogue employee otherwise might be source of tremendous financial, operational and public relations stressors on a company.
From the employee relations perspective, effective risk management must include a thoughtful audit of a company's personnel policies and relevant training history, and a working plan for effective implementation and enforcement going forward.
The easiest place to start an employment audit is by reviewing current employee-related policies. In that respect, a good employee handbook is a must. Though the content of the handbook will differ depending on the culture, needs and locale(s) of a business, every handbook should contain the following “Top-5” policies, and risk managers should ensure they are drafted to comply with applicable law:
1. At-will employment: An employee handbook should convey the general policy of at-will employment, reflecting that either the employer or the employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any lawful reason, with or without notice. While an at-will employment policy has long been the staple of any employee handbook, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently put this policy to the test, questioning whether it might be interpreted as interfering with employees' rights to discuss and attempt to change their work conditions, including through joining a union.
Regardless of whether the company is unionized, a poorly worded at-will policy may draw unwanted attention from the NLRB. Thus, it is important to review the company's at-will policy with fresh eyes to ensure it serves its purpose in a legally compliant manner. On a related note, an employee handbook also should contain a prominent disclaimer that it is not intended and should not be interpreted as creating a contract of employment for any set term; and well-worded disciplinary policies giving management the flexibility to take appropriate corrective action, if, when and as appropriate on a case-by-case basis, without being held to a progressive discipline procedure.
2. Equal employment opportunity / non-discrimination: These policies also are a “must-have” for any employee handbook. Just as it is relatively easy to write these policies correctly, it also is easy to get them wrong, including by failing to include the appropriate protected categories or a mandatory complaint procedure to report any related complaints and concerns.
3. Anti-harassment: A harassment lawsuit, particularly a sexual harassment lawsuit, can involve protracted litigation and greatly damage a company's reputation. An updated, compliant anti-harassment policy should help prevent harassment from occurring and, to the extent such conduct does occur, to mitigate its harmful effects through mandatory internal reporting, investigation and remedial action procedures. In federal litigation, maintaining and consistently enforcing a well-written anti-harassment policy can make all the difference between whether the company will be held liable for the alleged conduct, or whether the suit will be dismissed before it gets to a trial.
4. Wage and hour: Often neglected or boiler-plated in an employee handbook, these policies are essential in establishing and enforcing effective, legal time management and pay practices, and in providing a defense to companies in lawsuits over the payment of wages and benefits. As such claims are frequent contenders for class actions targeting manufacturers given the nature of their business, it is imperative to ensure that the company's wage and hour policies — including policies as to employee classification, recording of time, overtime, and paid time off — are in good working order.
5. Communications systems and social media: In the last two decades, rapidly evolving technologies have entirely transformed how businesses, and their employees, operate and communicate. Yet, incredibly, many companies continue to rely on archaic systems communications policies that focus more on telephones and facsimiles than computer systems, and related email, texts and Internet and social media posts and activities that have come to define modern communication. It is essential to have updated communications systems and, often, social media policies in place, to effectively communicate to employees what they can and cannot do, and what they should expect, relative to privacy and potential disciplinary ramifications when they use company-provided computer communications systems.
It should be noted that such policies have also recently generated a great deal of unwanted attention from the NLRB, so it is important to write them in with the eye toward ensuring that will not be deemed to inappropriately interfere with or chill employees' rights to discuss their terms and conditions of work.
Of course, a good handbook is hardly worth the paper it is written on unless it is consistently and effectively enforced. Policy enforcement should begin with the company's leadership, and specifically the leadership's awareness of and commitment to upholding and enforcing personnel policies in a consistent and effective manner. That requires risk managers to communicate key handbook policies whenever new employees join the company, and also during periodic training intervals thereafter. Though often dreaded, policy training really does not have to be, and should not be, “boring” or “tedious.” If done well, it should be informative and insightful in helping management and subordinate employees to recognize and resolve workplace issues before they turn into legal problems.
Risk management through effective restrictive covenant agreements
In addition to ensuring that the business has solid employment policies and procedures in place, manufacturers should be proactive about the measures being taken to protect the company's proprietary information, products, customers and employees from the competition. Well-drafted, enforced — and enforceable — restrictive covenant agreements are essential in helping a company to achieve these important goals.
In reviewing restrictive covenants, manufacturers should keep in mind that restrictive covenant law is constantly evolving and can vary significantly state-to-state. A restriction that is certain to be upheld in one state may be deemed a patently overbroad and unlawful in another. In Illinois, restrictive covenants have been routinely enforced so long as they have been appropriately tailored in time and scope, and based on a legitimate business interest. Just recently, however, one Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a restrictive covenant will be enforced only if supported by a minimum of two years of continued employment as consideration — an offer of employment or employment lasting less than two years will not suffice.
Thus, crafting an enforceable restrictive covenant is a fine art and should be done by experienced, competent attorneys who are not only familiar with the applicable law, but who will take the time needed to understand the company's business protections appropriately required to stave off harmful disclosure, solicitation and competition activities.
In conclusion, experienced, successful risk managers at manufacturing companies know that effective risk management requires constant vigilance and proactive follow-up. Taking effective, efficient steps now to ensure that the business is protected with appropriate insurance coverage, smart products practices, and working employee relations policies and practices can make all the difference in preventing expensive, protracted and image-damaging legal claims later.
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Tech's Predictions for Artificial Intelligence in 2025
- 2Tyson & Mendes Appoints Cayce Lynch First Female Nationwide Managing Partner
- 3Spellbook Expands Deeper Into the In-house Market
- 4Here’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
- 5Obtaining an Edge in Appellate Advocacy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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