Slashdot Mirror
NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time'
Doc Ruby writes "The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled to ban off-duty worker 'fraternization,' at the employer's discretion. So getting together for a beer after work can now be prohibited by the boss. With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars, will this ruling come back to bite employers in the IT industry? Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?"
...since the submission is extremely misleading and melodramatic, as usual.
NLRB ruling
The ruling does not universally allow employers to ban any and all off-duty interaction. It made a specific ruling, in its capacity of administering the National Labor Relations Act, that Guardsmark's ban on in-uniform, but off duty, fraternization ("dating or becoming overly friendly with") with clients and coworkers. The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform. The NLRB ruling further stated that care must be taken such that this ruling is not misapplied as to have a "chilling" effect on employee's rights under Section 7 of the the Act.
The actual order is:
ORDER
The Respondent, Guardsmark, LLC, its officers, agents, suc-cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining or enforcing a handbook provision prohibit-ing employees from registering complaints regarding their wages, hours, or conditions of employment with Guardsmarks' clients.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision advise its employees, nationwide, that the handbook provision regarding registering complaints with clients is not to be understood as limiting the right of employees to engage in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) At a time when the employee handbook is to be revised or reissued, either delete the handbook provision prohibiting employees from registering complaints with clients, or modify the said language so that it does not prohibit activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its San Francisco, California office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Google cache, since article is already going slow:: www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_20 05.cfm+&hl=en
:) )
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mO-w2Me3Sy4J
This sounds like a very disturbing ruling. IANAL, so I'm not sure how any of this will stand to to serious scrutiny, but would this give employers the power to "ban" employee unions it doesn't like? And yet workers have the right to associate (at least I believe they do, its been a while since I researched workers rights at all, correct me if I'm wrong
More importantly, what useful purpose could this serve, and how would you enforce it? Without following your workers around 24/7, this ruling is nearly unenforcable.
This whole think reeks of silliness.
Far as I understand, the NLRB is for relations between labor management (Unions) and companies. This rulling is directed at union solictiation/events after work and in company uniform.
There are well defined procedures for starting a pro-union vote. Strict rules, and lots of foul play. This group is around to rule which side screwed up that delicate dance.
This has no affect on individual employees after ours and out of uniform. Unless they are having drinks at a bar with the local union rep and their entire department. Then god knows the rules and laws that have to be followed.
The concern (towards both parties) is bribes and kickbacks to a select group of workers to get or not get in place a union.
Move along people, nothing to see here. Nothing 'chilling' about this. No slope, and nothing slippery about it.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
The company, then, has a somewhat reasonable explanation for the need to restrict fraternization - it is a potential security lapse, which would result in a significant loss of reputation for their company.
In this limited role, I cannot help but agree. Especially since the NLRB rules only on the basis of interference with union-organizing activities. As I read the NLRB decision, this wasn't a review for Constitutionality -- only to determine if the rule was designed to curtail or prevent union activity at the company.
sounds good...... in theory.... most folks I know don't ever see this. You work 9 hours, even if you get your stuff done, and you are reprimanded for not finding more to do, and if it happens too often, you get fired.
FYFL-
The judge also concluded that the Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a work rule that directs employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date[,] or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." The judge reasoned that such a rule "does not on its face, or by reasonable implication, pre-clude activities protected by the Act." The General Counsel excepts, arguing that employees reasonably would understand the rule to prohibit activity protected by Section 7.
We find no merit to this exception. The Respondent's rule is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer's rule mandated that "[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel property." 326 NLRB at 825. We concluded that the rule was lawful because employees would not reasonably read "this rule as prohibiting protected employee com-munications . . . about terms and conditions of employ-ment." Id. at 827. Although the Respondent's rule is not identical to the one in Lafayette Park Hotel, we find that any differences between the rules are not material and do not warrant a different outcome here. Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not believe that the Respondent's rule would reasonably tend to chill protected employee activity. The Respondent's proscrip-tion against fraternization appears alongside proscrip-tions on "dat[ing,] or becom[ing] overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." That being so, we believe that employees would reasonably under-stand the rule to prohibit only personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. In our view, it would be an unreasonable stretch for an employee to infer that speaking to others about terms and conditions of employment is a "fraternization" that is condemned by the rule. As in Lutheran Heritage Village, our dissenting colleague continues to advocate finding a violation where an employee could possibly perceive a conflict between a rule and protected activity. We, instead, limit the Board's reach to rules, unlike this one, where an em-ployee would reasonably perceive such a conflict.
We recognize that the rule in Lafayette Park Hotel prohibited fraternization with guests, while the rule here prohibits fraternization with client employees or coem-ployees. However, in context, the rule here is reasonably understood as prohibiting personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. Moreover, as the judge noted and our dissenting col-league ignores, the Respondent's rule is designed "to provide safeguards so that security will not be compro-mised by interpersonal relationships either between Re-spondent's fellow security guards or between Respon-dent's security guards and clients' employees." Given those heightened security concerns, we think the Re-spondent's justification for its fraternization rule is even stronger than that of the employer in Lafayette Park Ho-tel, where we concluded that a fraternization rule was a proper means for preventing the "appearance of favorit-ism, claims of sexual harassment, and employee dissen-sion created by romantic relationships in the workplace." 326 NLRB at 827 fn.
The thing about the ACLU is that they don't ask who you voted for, what your religion is, or what color your skin is before they work to protect your rights.
Does it surprise you that a majority of ACLU members are religious? Most of them are Christians, with many Jews and Muslims and other religions.
The problem is that they don't waste their energy fighting off people who try to define them as something they are not. They let their own actions define who they are. Which is evidenced by their repeated defenses of the civil liberties of all members of society.
Maybe you should visit the ACLU's website for yourself and learn about them from THEM instead of Limbaugh.
What?
If you are being pushed around like that, then get a better job. Not all bosses are slave drivers.
Since the parent is highly moderated and will be seen, I'll respond here, duplicating one of my other responses:
The ORDER of this ruling, which is the only substantive piece of the ruling, relates to in-uniform provisions. The NLRB took NO ACTION with regard to the fraternization decision, already made by a judge, noting simply that such provisions are not prohibited and that precedence exists for employers to maintain anti-fratnernization laws. In other words, the only positive, definable action taken by the NLRB was with regard to in-uniform rules, as can be seen in the order, and simply held the status quo, albeit with comment, with regard to allowed anti-fraternization rules.
In other words, a labor website picked this up, twisted it to mean something that it didn't by taking it WAYYYY overboard, then someone posted it to slashdot, no doubt awaiting the inevitable accusations of a conservative Republican corporatist conspiracy. The fact of the matter is that employers can maintain regulations, and can indeed terminate you if you do not adhere to them, period. The NLRB made NO AFFIRMATIVE DECISION in that regard, simply commenting that it jived with previous precedent (with a dissenting member), and did not reverse a judge's preexisting ruling. Section 7 provisions must be protected, and if you and others want to interpret this as an affront to Section 7, fine, but frankly, I'm in the philosophical camp that employers must be able to release employees for any reason (excluding reasons prohibited by e.g., protected classes, and so on), so we'll likely not agree here. Being employed at a particular place, or indeed being employed at all, is not a right.