United States: The NLRB Expands The Use Of Confidentiality Rules In The Boeing Co.

As most employers are aware, the National Labor Relations Board's decision in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), established a new standard that significantly broadens the scope of rules, policies, and handbook provisions that lawfully may be maintained under the National Labor Relations Act.  The General Counsel's recent Memorandum GC 18-04 (Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing) provides important guidance about how the Board's decision will affect many types of workplace rules, including taking on the challenging task of categorizing confidentiality rules as lawful or unlawful.

In its decision, the Board established a balancing test to be applied to rules that reasonably may be construed to interfere with Section 7 rights.  Rules that are justified by employer interests that outweigh their impact on employee rights will be found categorically lawful.  In illustrating the type of rules that would be considered categorically unlawful under the new test, the Board described rules that restrict employees' right to communicate with one another about wages and benefits as being at the top of the list.  Such rules restrict core employee rights and generally are not outweighed by any countervailing justifications.

Confidentiality rules cover a number of subjects, however, and The Boeing Co. likely will result in approval of many provisions the Board previously has considered unlawful.  These include a range of provisions that do not restrict employee information or prevent coworker discussions about the workplace.  Even confidentiality provisions that arguably restrict peripheral employee rights may be broadly justified by employers' rights to protect their businesses from unfair competition, defend valuable data, secure operating methods and techniques, and prevent legal exposure.  In fact, Boeing successfully defended the no-camera rule that was at issue in its case by asserting the need to protect its proprietary information and production processes from disclosure.

In several earlier cases, former Chairman Philip Miscimarra wrote separate opinions advocating for the Board's adoption of the new The Boeing Co. standard.  He concluded that under it, confidentiality directives prohibiting disclosure of confidential, proprietary, business, and customer information generally are lawful to maintain.  The General Counsel's recent Memorandum expands on these concurring and dissenting opinions and concludes that many confidentiality rules that do not restrict employee rights will be treated categorically as lawful.

Rules Treating Information About Employees and Their Employment Terms as Confidential

Employees have a broad right to communicate with one another about wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of their employment.  Under the former standard established by the Board in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), rules that employees reasonably would construe to restrict that right routinely were found unlawful.

The Board in more recent years heightened its standard and construed arguably ambiguous workplace rules against the employer.  As a result, when a rule contained an unqualified prohibition on discussing "confidential" information generally, the Board frequently found it unlawful.  Generic confidentiality restrictions were treated as invalid because "an employer has a duty to minimize its impact on protected activity" by preventing rules from being misunderstood.  See Boeing Co., 362 NLRB No. 195 (2015).  These decisions assumed the invalidity of confidentiality provisions absent limiting language that clearly excluded protected communications from their scope.  See Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB No. 8 (2014) (Member Johnson, dissenting, noting that the current majority "signals its intent to steer the Board . . . towards a presumption that certain rules are unlawful unless there is an explicit exception for Section 7 activity").  In short, the Board placed the burden on employers to explicitly exclude information about employees and the terms and conditions of their employment from confidentiality policies.

The Boeing Co. reverses this course.  The Board now will begin its analysis by asking whether a rule reasonably interferes with protected employee rights.  This approach marks a return to the original Lutheran Heritage Village standard, where the Board held that in determining whether employees would reasonably construe work rules to prohibit Section 7 activity, it will give the rules a "reasonable reading," refrain from "reading particular phrases in isolation," and "must not presume improper interference with employee rights."  The Boeing Co. necessarily overrules prior cases finding confidentiality rules unlawful simply because they are broad.

At minimum, the standard under The Boeing Co. seems to require that to be unlawful, a rule must at least mention wages, benefits, or employment conditions within the definition of restricted information.  Thus, in The Boeing Co., the Board cited as the prototypical example of a categorically unlawful rule one that "prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another."  The same result would apply to a rule prohibiting disclosure of "wage and salary information," G4S Secure Solutions, 364 NLRB No. 92 (2016) (Miscimarra, concurring in part), and a rule prohibiting employees from disclosing their "salaries, contents of employment contracts," or "staff addresses and phone numbers."  Long Island Assoc. for AIDS Care, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 28 (2016) (Miscimarra, concurring in part).

Rules Treating Proprietary, Business, and Customer Information As Confidential

A confidentiality provision that does not refer to employee information or working conditions generally does not restrict employees from engaging in concerted activities and should be expected to be found lawful under The Boeing Co.  As an illustration, Member Miscimarra concluded in his dissent in Schwan's Home Service, 364 NLRB No. 20 (2016), that a rule prohibiting disclosure of "information concerning customers" is lawful because customers are not involved in activities such as the collective bargaining process.  He reasoned that "although two or more employees may sometimes concertedly engage in NLRA-protected conduct that implicates customer information, I believe this is likely to occur in limited circumstances, and in such cases, I believe the Board can independently address whether applying [the rule] against such conduct violates" the Act.  Because employers have a compelling interest in prohibiting the disclosure of customer information, such rules should be considered broadly lawful under the new standard.

In his recent guidance Memorandum, the General Counsel takes this interpretation a step further and defines rules generally protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information as categorically lawful under The Boeing Co.  As the General Counsel points out, a ban on discussing confidential information should not be assumed to affect employees' rights unless employment terms at least are mentioned.  Given the substantial legitimate interests behind such rules, and the minor impact they have on protected activity, the Board's Regional offices have been instructed to consider them lawful when reviewing unfair labor practice cases.

Examples of the types of rules the General Counsel will treat as categorically lawful under the Board's new standard include the following:

  • "Information concerning customers . . . shall not be disclosed, directly or indirectly" or "used in any way."
  • Do not disclose confidential financial data, or other non-public proprietary company information.  Do not share confidential information regarding business partners, vendors, or customers.
  • "Divulging Hotel-private information to employees or other individuals" is prohibited.
  • No unauthorized disclosure of business secrets or other confidential information.

Prohibitions on Disclosure of Information Obtained From the Employer

Employers retain substantial information in their records, and much of it concerns employees.  Often this information is highly sensitive in nature.  Employee social security numbers, identification or account numbers, and protected medical information that may be housed in the employer's files typically would not be needed for employees to engage in concerted activities.  However, protecting such information from disclosure is critically important to prevent identity theft and privacy intrusions, and to avoid liability.  Rules protecting this type of highly sensitive employee information very likely will be found lawful under the Board's new balancing test.  See Verizon Wireless, 365 NLRB No. 38 (2017) (Miscimarra, dissenting in part) ("Nobody can reasonably question the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information such as social security numbers, identification numbers, passwords, and financial information.").

In addition, and more broadly, the information contained in an employer's files should be subject to the employer's control like any of its other assets.  The Board's traditional rule has been that "employees may use for self-organizational purposes information and knowledge which comes to their attention in the normal course of work activity and association but are not entitled to their Employer's private or confidential records."  Ridgely Mfg. Co., 207 NLRB 193, 196-97 (1973).  For instance, an employee was not entitled to demand from the employer a list of his coworkers, but was engaged in protected activity when he was memorizing the names of fellow employees from timecards for the purpose of contacting them about union organizing.  Thus, employees may use information that is openly available to them, but may not disclose the employer's internal confidential information without authorization.  See International Business Machines Corp., 265 NLRB 638 (1982).

In Macy's, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 116 (2017), the Board recently ruled that a confidentiality policy limiting the use or disclosure of customer names and contact information was lawful, despite that such information could be used to communicate about labor disputes.  The policy by its terms applied only to customer information obtained from the employer's own confidential records.  In ruling the policy lawful, the majority wrote that "[t]he Act does not protect employees who divulge information that their employer lawfully may conceal."  Id.  Because the policy at issue restricted only the use or disclosure of confidential customer information that the employer "has" or "maintains," it was lawful.  Id.

Nothing in The Boeing Co. undermines the rule in Macy's, Inc.  To the contrary, the same rationale applies to rules protecting information in the employer's files even when it includes employee information that otherwise is protected.  In Verizon Wireless, 365 NLRB No. 38 (2017), then-Chairman Miscimarra dissented, arguing that a rule restricting disclosure of employees' home addresses and phone numbers in its files was lawful.  He argued that "disclosing information contained in the [employer's] confidential files would not typically be protected by the Act."

As the General Counsel pointed out in his recent guidance Memorandum, restricting disclosure of information from the employer's files is quite different from restricting discussions about or use of the information generally.  While employees must remain free to share coworkers' contact information, or other information about the workplace, they need not be permitted to violate internal information protection policies.  "Given the substantial legitimate interests behind such rules, and the little, if any, adverse impact on NLRA-protected activity," such rules should be considered categorically lawful.

Other Rules Requiring Further Guidance; Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings and Participation in an Investigation

The Board's announcement in The Boeing Co. of lawful and unlawful categories of rules promises to significantly increase certainty in the Board's rules cases.  Of course, how the Board defines the types of rules that will be placed in these categories will go a long way toward determining how useful they will be.  The General Counsel's Memorandum is very valuable in this respect, but additional guidance in several areas still is needed.

It is difficult to predict how some common confidentiality provisions will be categorized by the Board in future cases.  For instance, when an arbitration agreement covering employment claims contains a confidentiality restriction, there is a real risk that the Board will treat it as unlawful under The Boeing Co.  In one case then-Member Miscimarra concurred with the Board majority that a provision treating all arbitration proceedings as confidential was unlawful, noting that "there may be circumstances where an arbitration agreement's confidentiality provision may be lawful based on justifications unrelated to the NLRA," but finding this was not such a case.  Dish Network, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 47 (2017).  He reached the same conclusion in Jack in the Box, 364 NLRB No. 12 (2016), concurring with the majority that a more limited provision treating an arbitration award as confidential was overly broad because it "would preclude all public discussion (with narrow exceptions) of employment-related matters addressed in arbitral decisions, including discussions that constitute concerted activity" while offering no supporting justifications.

Also important are confidentiality directives during workplace investigations.  In Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 137 (2015), the Board ruled that to justify a prohibition on employee discussions during ongoing investigations, an employer must demonstrate the need for confidentiality, such as protecting witnesses and evidence, preventing testimony from being altered or fabricated, or preventing a cover up.  The Board, in essence, prohibited blanket rules and required a balance of employer justifications for requiring confidentiality on a case-by-case basis.  Then-Member Miscimarra dissented in that case, and more recently in Dish Network, 365 NLRB No. 47 (2017), arguing that a narrowly tailored nondisclosure request, even if made routinely, always should be considered lawful.  It is not clear whether that view will result in investigation confidentiality directives being treated as categorically lawful in the future, or subject to a case-by-case assessment based on the needs of a given investigation, as under Banner Estrella Medical Center.

In the case of confidentiality rules, some will be categorized as lawful and some unlawful.  Some rules may be assigned to a middle-ground of arguably lawful rules that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  Additional guidance is needed regarding rules that are difficult to categorize and are subject to individualized assessments.  Employers and drafters should keep in mind that in all cases, rules and handbook language that do not reasonably restrict employee rights always will be found lawful, and are likely to provide the best safeguard against administration errors that result in unlawful applications.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions