"NLRB Ruling Foreshadows Scrutiny of Workplace Civility, Social Media Rules," HR Dive

In a recent article for HR Dive, partner Peter Spanos discusses the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) recent decision that has implications for employers and employees alike. In a case involving Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, the NLRB reversed its previous stance, which allowed employers to maintain certain handbook policies, such as those mandating a respectful workplace. All policies that restrict employee speech and actions must now be reviewed, "and very likely rewritten," according to Spanos. 

One of the issues examined in the Stericycle case was an employee handbook policy requiring employees to behave in a manner conducive to efficient operations, and refrain from behavior that is damaging to the employer’s reputation. The NLRB considered whether this policy could be interpreted as prohibiting protected concerted activity, including discussing wages with co-workers; circulating a petition for better hours; refusing to work in unsafe conditions; or talking to the media about problems at a workplace. 

The NLRB concluded the policy crossed the line, emphasizing that rules aimed at criticism by employees must contain clear language stating that they are aimed only at unprotected activities. 

Spanos explained that "the Stericycle ruling means all policies that restrict employee speech and actions — inside and outside of the company — must be reviewed and likely revised." Adding that this includes policies that restrict employee use of social media; policies that restrict criticism; policies that restrict negative comments and disparagement of the company management; policies that promote civility; policies requiring confidentiality of investigations and complaints; and policies that restrict behavior such as use of cameras in the workplace. 

“Employers need to understand that the NLRB decision in Stericycle is fully intended to allow greater freedom to employees who want to engage in concerted activity and communications for purposes that may conflict with the employer’s interests,” said Spanos.

To read the full article, please click here.