As published by SHRM's We Know Next: my latest article can be found here.
Many employers have rules that prohibit employees from returning
to work while they are not on duty. These rules are designed
to keep order but they also have the effect of limiting employee
access to engage in union activity while off duty.
The NLRB has long held that a rule barring off-duty employees
access to the workplace is valid only if:
- It is limited solely to the interior of the facility
- It is clearly disseminated to all employees (so it must be in writing)
- Is applied to off duty access for all purposes, not just union activity. Tri-County Medical Center, 22 NLRB 1089 (1976).
In addition to the above, the policy must not be implemented in
response to union activity. Otherwise, the Board will find
anti-union animus.
Last year, the Board applied Tri-County to a case in which
employees were called back to Company-sponsored events, such a
retirement party or baby shower. The Board held that the
employer's inviting off duty employees to return to the
Company's premises violated the rule so that it could not be
applied to employees returning to the premises to engage in union
activity. Saint Johns' Health Center, 357 NLRB NO.
170 (2011)
The Board objected to the employer's reservation of its right
to invite employees to return to its property whenever it
wanted. "The employer is telling its employees, you may
not enter the premises after your shift except when we say you
can."
The Board obviously ignored the difference between the
"employer acting as employer" providing direction to its
employees and the employer acting as "traffic cop" in
terms of when off duty employees can return to the workplace on
their own initiative. The NLRB's analysis makes sense to
me when applied to the latter but not so when applied to the
former.
The message from the Board's decision:
- Do not include a broad reservation of rights unless you want the Board to say you have no rights.
- If you want to host a special event, such a holiday or retirement party, consider a local restaurant or other location. It is not without cost but inviting employees back to your workplace while they are off duty is not without risk either.
Note: calling "on call" employees into work is
not asking them to return off duty. To the contrary, you are asking
or requiring that they be on duty.
Last month, the Board decided another case involving off duty
employees, Sodexo America LLC, July 2, 2012. The employer in the
case is a hospital and it had an off duty policy that included
three (3) exceptions:
- Visiting a patient
- Receiving medical treatment
- Conducting hospital-related business
The Board held the first two exceptions did not violate
Tri-County. Critically, in those circumstances, when the
employees returned to the workplace in a different capacity, they
were treated like all other non-employees. For example, when
employees were visitors of patients, they complied with all of the
rules which applied to other visitors, such as wearing a badge and
having only the same access as non-employee visitors.
However, the Board held the third exception violated the
NLRA. The Board "reasoned" the rule violated the
NLRA because it gave the employer "free reign to set the terms
of off duty access." The Board noted in a footnote that even
something as "innocuous" as allowing employees to pick up
pay checks may render a rule lawful on its face discriminatory in
its application.
Again, what does this mean for employers:
- Be careful of reserving your rights in the policy or you may end up with no rights
- Make sure employees who return to work in a different capacity have no greater rights than non-employees and are subject to the same restrictions as them. We all know that health care workers and retail workers are in the unions' cross hairs. I already have discussed health care workers. What would this mean for retail workers? When they shop, they cannot access "employee only" areas for starters!
A difficult case is when an employee asks to return to work to
pick up a paycheck. Does this automatically give employees
rights to access the property for other purposes? The Board
might say "Yes," although hopefully a court reviewing the
issue would say "No." One simple solution is for the
employer representative to meet the employee in the exterior of the
building, if possible.
There are other difficult issues, such as allowing employees to
return to the premises to share a meal in a non-public
cafeteria with family members or friends who also are employees of
the company. For example, a husband and wife work for
employer. Wife is working. Husband is off. Husband
returns off duty to have dinner with his wife in the company's
non-public cafeteria. This would appear to violate the Board's
all or nothing "analysis." A victim of the
NLRB's assault on management rights could be family and other
relationships.
In these cases, prohibiting such access may avoid the legal
risk. But it may create an employee relations problem which
could serve as the catalyst for union activity.
It is policy that the Board's analysis may apply beyond just
off-duty employees. It could have broader implications for
Solicitation and Distribution policies where the employer invites
3rd parties onto its property. But I will need to meditate more
before I can write about that!
Employers need to evaluate carefully the current decisions by the
NLRB recognizing that sometimes the most cautious legal approach is
the riskiest in terms of employee relations.
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. The Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior managers.
Issues After The Election
