NLRB v. Northeastern Land Services 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 12678 (June 22 2011)
On June 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) in Northeastern Land Services, Ltd., Case 1-CA-39447. The Board had determined that a confidentiality provision in an agreement with an unrepresented employee interfered with the employee’s rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Given the breadth of the decision, employers should be encouraged to rethink, and perhaps revise, confidentiality agreements with both represented and unrepresented employees.
NLS and Employee Dupuy Become Embroiled in Disputes Over Payments of Wages and Reimbursement of Expenses
In July 2000, temporary agency Northeastern Land Services, Ltd. (NLS) hired Charging Party Jamison Dupuy (Dupuy) to perform work for NLS client, El Paso Energy (El Paso). NLS hired Dupuy as a right-of-way agent, and his job was to assist El Paso in obtaining permits and acquiring temporary space along roadways for a pipeline.
At the time he was hired, Dupuy received an offer letter setting forth the terms of his employment. The letter contained a clause (a) protecting the confidentiality of information received from NLS clients; and (b) prohibiting the solicitation or acceptance of work or assignments from any NLS clients while working for NLS and for a period of six months thereafter. In addition, the clause contained the following language:
Employee also understands that the terms of his employment, including compensation, are confidential to Employee and the NLS Group. Disclosure of these terms to other parties may constitute grounds for dismissal.
Dupuy’s employment contract with NLS contained the same provisions.
At trial, Jesse Green, NLS’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, testified about the competitive nature of the industry, and how the cost of labor constitutes a substantial part of its bidding for contracts. The confidentiality agreement was intended to prevent NLS employees from dealing directly with clients regarding the terms of their employment. On this point, Green described the adverse effect on client relationships if employees approached clients with their problems.
[W]e have very specific billing requirements from our clients . . . and when individuals try to circumvent these contractual obligations . . ., of course it creates problems for us. . . . [W]hen our employees approach our client with . . . their problems, then we’re not providing the services that we contracted to provide.
Green also testified that the provision prohibiting discussion of wages or terms of employment was not intended to prohibit NLS employees from discussing these issues among themselves, nor had it ever been enforced that way.
Dupuy was employed by NLS on two separate occasions in 2000. During the course of his second term, Dupuy complained to NLS regarding the timing and amount of expense reimbursement and late payment of his wages. On at least one occasion, Dupuy threatened to file a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
Believing that NLS was not responsive enough to his demands, Dupuy brought El Paso into the dispute, contacting El Paso employee, Rick Lopez. Dupuy had known Lopez before Dupuy was hired by NLS, and had obtained his job with NLS through Lopez.
NLS was unhappy when it discovered that Dupuy had contacted Lopez for help. After a further escalation of the disputes with Dupuy, NLS terminated his employment. Jesse Green told Dupuy that Dupuy was being let go because he had violated the provision in his employment agreement that prohibited him from discussing his wages with other parties.
Dupuy Files Unfair Practice Charge; ALJ Applies Balancing Test in NLS’s Favor
Dupuy filed an unfair practice charge against NLS, claiming that the prohibition on discussing terms of employment, including compensation, was unlawful because of the potential chilling effect on employees’ Section 7 rights. Therefore, Dupuy alleged that his termination violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Following a trial on the issue, the ALJ found that the rule in question “reasonably tended to coerce [employees] in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” But because the employer had a “legitimate and substantial business justification” for the rule, this outweighed what the ALJ considered to be a “minor” infringement on the employees’ Section 7 rights. His recommended order was that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Board and Court of Appeal Favor Inflexible Standard
The Board disagreed. Even though employees could discuss compensation among themselves, employees would “reasonably construe the language of the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity.” Therefore, the prohibitions on discussions with other parties ran afoul of the standard articulated in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004) The Board did not consider NLS’s arguments as to the business justification for the rule. In addition, the Board rejected the contention that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee for violation of a lawful provision of an overly broad, unlawful rule. Finally, the Board would not consider whether Dupuy would have been discharged in the absence of a violation of the confidentiality provision, because any discharge pursuant to the unlawful provision was unlawful as well.
Following NLS’s appeal, the Court of Appeals directed entry of judgment enforcing the Board’s order. The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRB’s conclusion that employees would reasonably construe the confidentiality provision to prohibit Section 7 activity. It was of no import that the provision was not intended, and had not been applied, to prohibit the employees from discussing compensation and other terms of employment among themselves. The court also declined to second guess the Board’s refusal to apply a balancing test, stating that it owed “deference” to the Board not to do so. Rather, the court declared that a more narrowly tailored provision could have accomplished NLS’s stated goal. Finally, the court determined that the Board “did not err” when it declined to consider whether Dupuy would have been terminated in the absence of the confidentiality rule.
Gleanings: Confidentiality Provisions Should Be Reviewed by Legal Counsel
This decision creates headaches for employers across many industries, including construction and construction project management, facilities management, municipal water, energy and waste management, and aspects of film or television production, where labor costs are a key element of bidding and can be akin to trade secret information. While the Court of Appeals notes, almost in passing, that the confidentiality provision could have been more narrowly tailored, it does not provide any concrete suggestions as to how that might be accomplished. In its 2004 decision in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, the Board affirmatively rejected the view of then Members Liebman and Walsh that employers must expressly affirm that work rules do not apply to Section 7 activity in order to protect them from legal challenge. Given the current composition of the Board, it is unclear whether that view would still carry the day.
One possible response to the court's decision would be to prohibit the use or disclosure of pricing information (that may be trade secret or otherwise protected) and to include “compensation” as part of pricing information. An employer could also better define the scope and purpose of the prohibition (e.g., so that it applies to the extent necessary to protect the employer’s competitive advantage and to prevent unfair competition). In recent years, California courts have moved toward tolerance of confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements only to the extent necessary to protect trade secret information. Such an approach might be necessary here as well.
One conclusion is clear: Employers should have confidentiality provisions reviewed by legal counsel for compliance with Section 8(a)(1).