As we previously blogged about – most recently here  and here, the NLRB has taken aim at employer workplace rules that it contends are unlawfully restricting employees’ Section 7 rights. 

On June 13, 2014 the NLRB affirmed an ALJ decision issued in Laurus Technical Institute, 360 NLRB No. 133 (Laurus), a case we previously blogged about here, where an employer’s “No Gossip Policy” was found unlawful. 

The Board’s Decision

In Laurus Technical Institute, a technical school implemented a “No Gossip Policy” (“Policy”) in February 2012. In relevant part, the Policy stated that “[e]mployees that participate in or instigate gossip about the company, an employee, or customer will receive disciplinary action…[that] may include termination.”

Additionally, the Policy listed six instances to help define “gossip,” including “[t]alking about a person’s personal life when they are not present,” “[t]alking about a person’s professional life without his/her supervisor present,” and “[c]reating, sharing, or repeating” rumors about another person, that are overheard, or that constitute hearsay. The Policy was published in multiple versions of the school’s employee handbook.

Nine months after the school introduced the Policy, it terminated an employee for “Unsatisfactory Performance.” In the employee’s termination letter the school noted that there were several reasons for her termination, including “multiple complaints about repeated violations of ‘the company’s written ‘no gossip policy,’ as outlined in the company’s handbook,’ which had ‘a direct and negative impact on [her] coworker’s ability to effectively perform their job responsibilities,’” and “attempts to actively solicit and recruit coworkers to work for another company, a direct competitor.”

The ALJ concluded that the school’s Policy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The decision explained that because “[t]he language in the no gossip policy is overly broad, ambiguous, and severely restricts employees from discussing or complaining about any terms and conditions of employment,” the Policy prohibits employees from exercising their rights under the Act. Similarly, the ALJ noted that the school’s Policy further chills employees’ protected rights because it “narrowly prohibits virtually all communications about anyone, including the company or its managers.”

The ALJ then dissected the employer’s actions with respect to the terminated employee. First, the decision stated that the termination was unlawful because “Board precedent holds that discharging an employee for violating an unlawful overbroad rule is likewise unlawful.” While the school argued that the employee “did not engage in any such protected activity, but if she did, she is not afforded the protection of the [NLRA] because of her disruptive behavior and its effects on her coworkers,” the ALJ rejected this argument and found that the employee was merely discussing recent layoffs of their former co-workers and supervisor and that such discussions constitute protected concerted activity.

 In its June 13, 2014 decision the Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the employer’s “No Gossip Policy” was “overly broad.”  As a result of its finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when it terminated the at-issue employee for violating the “No Gossip Policy” the Board ordered full reinstatement, with back pay. 

Implications For Employers

This decision highlights the continued need for employers tread lightly given the NLRB’s ever increasing fixation with workplace rules that it contends are unlawfully restricting employees’ Section 7 rights.  As the case law continues to develop, employers concerned about potential legal challenges might want to revisit their handbooks and explore the possibility of revising those policies that may be problematic in light of these recent decisions.  As a result, employer should be prepared find themselves (and their handbooks and work rules) in litigation before the NLRB.