National Clothesline
Some new rules from the NLRB
On January 31, unless the federal courts intervene, all employers subject to the
National Labor Relations Act will have to post a notice advising employees of
their rights under that law.
The notice is available on the NLRB website, www.nlrb.gov, and it is very
controversial.
 | ||
The reason the notice posting is so controversial is that pro-union members
currently dominate the NLRB. In fact, there is also a proposed regulation
pending that would make it easier for unions to organize workers at non-union
facilities.
That regulation would shorten the time between the filing of a petition to
unionize a drycleaner and the secret ballot election, essentially preventing
the employer from educating employees about the perils and problems with
unionization.
The notice, in most commentators’ opinion, is very pro-union. I agree. Under the National Labor Relations Act,
employees have the right to seek unionization and they have an equal right to
reject it. Most of the notice deals with the right to seek, and very little
with the right to reject. After listing all the rights employees have to
unionize, there is a bullet point that says the employees also have the right “to refrain” from such activities.
Most employers are unprepared to deal with a union organizing effort. Very few
supervisors understand what constitutes proper and improper conduct during a
union organizing drive.
For example, virtually any question designed to find out if an employee supports
the union or the employer is considered an unfair labor practice. Most
supervisors do not even know the company’s position on unionization, which compounds the problem if employees come to him
or her to seek advice on whether they should get involved with a union.
The National Labor Relations Act, in addition to having a procedure for
employees to vote in a secret ballot election on whether they want union
representation, covers activities that non-union employees may engage in with
respect to their wages and working conditions. Individual action may not be
protected, but collective action among employees is.
For example, employees (but not supervisors) have the right to discuss their pay
and benefits with other employees. For this reason, rules requiring employees
to keep their salaries and benefits confidential are considered illegal under
the Act.
Taking social media criticism
If you have such a policy, quietly move it off the bulletin board and out of
your handbook. Most recently, non-union employers have been charged with unfair
labor practices for disciplining employees for their Facebook and other social
media posts relating to their job.
Normally, criticizing the employer to a fellow co-worker is protected activity,
if the criticism relates to wages, hours, and working conditions. By the same
token, publicly criticizing your employer’s product or services is not, unless the criticism has a working condition
component.
Facebook is both a public forum and a method of communication between employees.
The NLRB has come down on the side of employees who disparage their employer to
other employees on Facebook, and the NLRB seems unconcerned with the damage
that such a public forum can have on a business.
If you find that your employees are engaging in discussions of your company on
Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, or some other social media website, seek legal
advice before you take action. Otherwise, you may have to reinstate an
employee, with back pay, for saying unkind things about your company on his or
her Facebook page.
The National Labor Relations Board has been around for over 75 years, but it is
doing everything it can keep to unions alive, despite a decline in union
membership. I suggest you check the website to see if the notice posting goes
into effect in January. I also suggest you learn what the National Labor
Relations Act requires, if only to prevent future legal difficulties.
