Laborsphere

NLRB’s New Election Rule Implementation Update

In preparation for the NLRB’s new “quickie election” rules going into effect next week, the NLRB General Counsel yesterday published a 36-page Guidance Memorandum intended to explain how representation cases will be processed under the NLRB’s final rule. While the lengthy memorandum describes specific changes to Board procedures in great detail, it leaves unanswered significant questions such as how Regional Directors will process petitions on a “real world” basis, what opportunities employers are left with to challenge bargaining unit compositions, and ultimately, whether the NLRB’s “quickie elections” result in significantly shorter election time periods. Indeed, the GC acknowledges that the Board “will not be able to fully assess what impact the rule will have” until after it begins processing representation petitions. The GC instead directs the NLRB’s Regional Directors to “continue to process representation petitions and conduct elections expeditiously” consistent with the Board’s revised rules.

What seems certain is that employers should prepare themselves for implementation of the Board’s new regulations on April 14^th. Last week President Obama vetoed a congressional resolution to disapprove the final rules, and while two pending federal cases challenge the Board’s statutory authority to publish the revised rules, it remains unlikely any such legal challenge will delay the Board’s implementation of its final rule next week.

SEC Uses Its Powers under the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions to Warn Employers Against Attempting to Restrict Employees’ Ability to Report Potential Violations

On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced a settled enforcement proceeding against KBR, Inc., a publicly traded, Houston-based technology and engineering company, for including “restrictive language” in confidentiality agreements used in the course of internal investigations. This is the first time the SEC has used its enforcement powers under Rule 21F-17 of the Whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Rule 21F-17 provides that “[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement … with respect to such communication.”

The language to which the SEC took exception appeared in confidentiality agreements KBR used in connection with internal investigations. The statement, which investigators required employees to sign before the interview, was included in the Company’s Code of Business Conduct Investigations Procedures manual. The statement read:

I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during this interview, without the prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure of information may be the grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

It does not appear that the policy specifically referenced reporting to the SEC or any governmental authority. Moreover, it seems likely that the Company’s intent was to prevent employees from discussing the matter with each other. The SEC admitted that it had no evidence KBR ever prevented an employee from communication with the SEC staff or that KBR took any action to enforce the confidentiality provision. Nevertheless, the SEC posited that the language undermined the purpose of Section 21F and Rule 21F-17(a), which is to “encourage individuals to report to the” SEC.

The SEC indicated its approval of KBR’s amended policy by quoting it in the Order. The new policy provides:

Nothing in this Confidentiality Statement prohibits me from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General, or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation. I do not need the prior authorization of the Law Department to make any such reports or disclosures and I am not required to notify the company that I have made such reports or disclosures.

While the Order imposes a modest civil penalty of $130,000, KBR is also required to contact KBR employees who signed confidentiality statements from August 21, 2011, to the present and to provide them with a copy of the Order and a statement that they do not need permission from KBR to communicate with any governmental entity.

This case of first impression underscores the SEC’s commitment to the Whistleblower program and its intent to punish employers that, intentionally or not, restrict an employee’s ability to report potential violations to the SEC. There has been much press about such restrictive language in employment agreements, not just related to the SEC, but also related to the National Labor Relations Board and other federal agencies. It is clear the SEC will consider such restrictive language wherever it may be found. By virtue of this Order, companies will have to manage protecting the integrity of internal investigations and avoiding accusations that it discouraged employees from going to the SEC. It also remains to be seen whether the SEC will take the position that companies are required to affirmatively inform employees of their ability to make reports to the SEC or other governmental bodies or whether employees must merely refrain from discouraging such activity. Because the Whistleblower provisions apply to both private and public companies, it seems a prudent course of action for all employers to review employment and confidentiality agreements.

New Guidance Regarding Employee Handbooks — Part One: Don’t Let Your Confidentiality Provisions “Chill” Employee Communications

It is a great time for employers to review their employee handbooks. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), recently issued a lengthy and detailed report summarizing the NLRB’s rulings on common handbook provisions. To view the complete Memorandum, click here.

The rulings in the report apply to both unionized and non-unionized employers because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) restricts all employers from issuing policies or rules – even if well-intentioned – that inhibit employees from engaging in activities protected by the act, such as discussing wages, criticizing management, publicly communicating about working conditions and discussing unionization.

This LaborSphere post is the first in a series that will provide guidance based on the NLRB’s report. Over the upcoming weeks, we will summarize what the NLRB has deemed acceptable and unacceptable language for workplace policies on: (1) professionalism; (2) harassment; (3) trademarks; (4) photography/recording; and (5) media contact.

When Does A Confidentiality Policy Go Too Far?

The NLRB acknowledges that employers have a legitimate right and need to protect confidential information. However, policies that are overbroad and can be interpreted by employees to prohibit discussion regarding their wages, hours and working conditions will draw scrutiny from the NLRB. While context always matters for policy language, there are some “DON’Ts” that have clearly emerged from the NLRB report:

• DO NOT prohibit employees from discussing “employee information.”

• DO NOT prohibit disclosure of “another’s confidential information.” This could be interpreted to be wages and therefore violate the NLRA.

• DO NOT prohibit disclosure of “details about the employer.”

• DO NOT prohibit disclosure of all categories of “non-public information.”

The NLRB not only disfavors policies and rules that expressly prohibit or restrict employee discussions and collective action, but also those that are vague enough to dissuade an employee from such activities. According to the NLRB, employees should not have to guess about whether they are allowed to talk about their pay, hours or working conditions, but should instead feel free to do so.

When Do Confidentiality Rules Strike The Right Balance?

Employers can vigorously and clearly prohibit disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential business information, provided that employers do not define those terms too expansively. Some examples of confidentiality policies that the NLRB has deemed lawful include:

• No unauthorized disclosure of “business ‘secrets’ or other confidential information.”

• “Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information not otherwise available to persons or firms outside [the Employer] is cause for disciplinary action, including termination.”

• “Do not disclose confidential financial data, or other non-public proprietary company information. Do not share confidential information regarding business partners, vendors or customers.”

Even with brightline rules and other strong guidance, perhaps the most important takeaway when reviewing company policies is that context matters. Illustrative of this point, the NLRB upheld a rule that prohibited disclosure of “all information acquired in the course of one’s work.” On its face, this rule is arguably overbroad and could chill employee communications. However, the NLRB recognized that the rule was “nested among rules relating to conflicts of interest and compliance with SEC regulations and state and federal laws” and, as such, could not be reasonably understood to prevent employees from discussing their wages, hours or working conditions.

In sum, when reviewing policies intended to safeguard confidential information, an employer should watch out for language that is arguably overbroad or lacks sufficient context to justify its scope. This approach is the best formula for ensuring that policies achieve the employer’s true purpose: protecting critical confidential and proprietary information.

Workplace Anxiety and the ADA

For employers, weighing an employee’s health issues with workplace concerns, such as employee safety and productivity, often requires a delicate balance. The challenge may be even greater when handling issues related to mental health. Questions abound on both sides: employees wonder if they should tell their employers about personal events that may be affecting their mental well-being, and employers struggle with difficult decisions concerning employment status when they have an ineffective worker.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) generally bars discrimination against an employee with a disability who is able to perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The ADA defines “disability” as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” The associated regulations define “mental impairment” as encompassing “any mental or psychological disorder, such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” Navigating these definitions and avoiding lawsuits and potential liability for claims of mental disability present a serious challenge for employers.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attempted to clarify the terrain. In Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, No. 13-2212, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3878 (4th Cir. March 12, 2015), the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s summary judgment dismissal of a lawsuit in which the plaintiff, who alleged that she suffered from “social anxiety disorder,” claimed that her former employer violated the ADA by: (1) discriminating against her on the basis of her disability; (2) failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation; and (3) retaliating against her for seeking to exercise her rights under the ADA. The plaintiff, a deputy court clerk, alleged that her disability left her unable to engage in social interactions with the public at the courthouse’s front counter. In particular, she asserted that “working at the front counter caused her extreme stress and panic attacks.” The plaintiff alleged that, approximately three weeks after requesting reduced public interaction, the defendant terminated her employment.

The Jacobs Court, the first Court of Appeals to address “social anxiety disorder” under the ADA in the employment context, held that interacting with others is a major life activity and that social anxiety disorder can substantially limit one’s ability to engage in this activity. Thus, according to the Court, social disability disorder may constitute a disability under the ADA. The Court also considered the fact that many deputy court clerks at the defendant courthouse did not regularly interact with the public and, therefore, public interaction was not an essential function of the job. The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find evidence supporting each of the plaintiff’s ADA claims. Accordingly, it reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for trial.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, approximately 1 in 4 adults suffer from a mental health disorder. These disorders include depression, bipolar disorder, panic, post-traumatic stress and generalized anxiety disorders. Given the statistics, it is important for employers to understand their obligations under the ADA and similar state and local laws, and to consult with counsel when questions arise.

House Joins Senate in Passing Resolution to Disapprove New NLRB Election Rule

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 232-186 in favor of passing a resolution to disapprove the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB’s”) new “quickie election” rule, which becomes effective April 14 and is expected to give unions a decided “edge” in winning union representation elections. The House’s vote comes as no surprise and follows a similar March 4th vote by the Senate also disapproving the NLRB’s election rule. The White House has announced that President Obama will veto the joint Congressional resolution.

A Republican-led Congress came out strongly against the new rule when the NLRB finalized the election rule in December 2014. Dubbing it an “ambush election” rule, Congress quickly sought to disapprove the new election rule under the Congressional Review Act, with top Republicans on the Senate Labor Committee citing major concerns such as the speed in which elections would progress and privacy issues arising from forced disclosure of employee personnel information.

Upon passing the resolution (S.J. Res. 8), House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) stated “The board’s ambush election rule will stifle employer free speech, cripple worker free choice, and jeopardize the privacy of workers and their families. The House and Senate have firmly rejected this radical scheme.”

Lawsuits have also been filed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the NLRB’s election rule. On January 5, the US Chambers of Commerce filed a complaint against the NLRB over the election rule in the DC Federal District Court. This is the same court that struck down the NLRB’s prior attempt to implement new election rules in 2011. At that time, the U.S. District Court held that the rule had been finalized without a necessary quorum of at least three validly appointed NLRB Members. Business groups in Texas, including the Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas, Inc., filed suit in a federal court in Texas also challenging the NLRB’s new election rule.

Despite attack on two fronts, the NLRB shows no signs of withdrawing or postponing the election rule’s effective date. To the contrary, the NLRB actively is moving forward with implementation efforts, and began training all NLRB regional office employees on the new rule beginning March 16. Regional offices will offer educational meetings to labor practitioners from March 23 through April 13. Likewise, employers should begin to prepare for implementation of the new election rule, by reviewing and updating labor relations policies and practices for responding to a likely increase in union organizing campaigns.

Joint Employer Liability on the Rise

The Issue: Could my company be liable as a joint employer for California Labor Code violations of our subsidiary or third-party staffing company?

The Solution: Companies with subsidiaries and staffing companies in California should take steps to limit exposure.

Analysis: Parent corporations are generally presumed to be separate entities from their subsidiaries, and therefore not liable for the unlawful treatment of their subsidiary’s separate employees unless they exercise significant control over day-to-day operations. Recent developments, however, call this precedent into question.

In Castaneda v. Ensign, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1015 (2014) (review denied), the California Court of Appeal held: “an entity that controls the business enterprise may be an employer even if it did not ‘directly hire, fire, or supervise’ the employees.” (emphasis added). The parent company at issue claimed a lack of control over wages, hours and working conditions of its subsidiary operating companies’ employees. In reversing summary judgment for the parent and sending the case to be tried by a jury, the court highlighted evidence that the parent provided centralized human resources, accounting, payroll, and other key services to its subsidiary; controlled the mechanisms used to track subsidiary employees’ hours; handled subsidiary employee discipline, benefits and workers’ compensation claims; required subsidiary compliance with parent policies, practices, templates, forms, and training; and set the pay rate for some subsidiary employees.

Castaneda also resurfaced recent California Supreme Court precedent that “[m]ultiple entities may be employers where they control different aspects of the employment relationship…This occurs, for example, when one entity (such as a temporary employment agency) hires and pays a worker, and another entity supervises the work…Supervision of the work, in the specific sense of exercising control over how services are performed, is properly viewed as one of the ‘working conditions’…control over how services are performed is an important, perhaps even the principal, test for the existence of an employment relationship.” In other words, the worksite employer who supervises the worker may be liable to workers for Labor Code violations and other alleged wrongs even if it is not the employer of record who issues paychecks.

The California Legislature is not sitting on the sidelines, either. Effective January 1, 2015, AB 1897 imposed joint employer liability on many companies who engage labor contractors such as staffing agencies that fail to pay required wages to, or secure valid workers compensation insurance for, the workers they supply—regardless of the “control” test discussed above. Please see our prior blog post on this new law here.

Likewise, the California Department of Industrial Relations has clarified that California’s new paid sick leave law will apply equally to staffing agencies and their “joint employers.” Please see our prior blog post on this new law, here.

Given this upward trend in joint employer liability, companies with the help of counsel should evaluate their subsidiary and staffing relationships. Corporate structure—in name and in operations—should be separate and independent. Companies who prefer centralized corporate services by the parent company should weigh the risk that efficiency may indicate control over wages, hours, and working conditions. Careful selection and some oversight of, and indemnity agreements with, labor contractors should be considered.