content top

The NLRB’s Latest Do’s and Don’ts of Employer Handbooks

Jack SestakBy John G. Sestak, Jr.

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has launched a new approach with respect to employer/employee relations by studying employer handbooks to determine whether they violate the rules protecting concerted activity. On March 18, 2015, NLRB General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr. issued a report and Memorandum[1] offering “guidance” on various provisions of employer handbooks in his hope that employers review their handbooks and rules to ensure they are lawful.

By providing a number of examples of rules that are prohibited and rules that are lawful, the Memorandum separately focuses on provisions of the handbook of Wendy’s International LLC, which recently made a settlement with the NLRB. As Griffin noted, his inquiry, which is not a model of clarity in establishing a bright line between the rules that are correct and those that are incorrect, focuses on whether individual rules have a “chilling effect on employees’ Section 7 activity.”

The Memorandum breaks into various categories, and quotes examples of, rules found to be “lawful” or “unlawful”. The categories include confidentiality, conduct toward employer and fellow employees, third party communications, and employer logos, copyrights and trademarks.

While the Memorandum is replete with examples of different employee conduct addressed in the handbook rules, it is instructive to look at some conduct rules that were found to be unlawfully broad because “employees would reasonably construe them to restrict protected discussions with their coworkers.”

  • “[D]on’t pick fights” online.
  • Do not make “insulting, embarrassing, hurtful or abusive comments about other company employees online,” and “avoid the use of offensive, derogatory, or prejudicial comments.”
  • Do not send “unwanted, offensive, or inappropriate emails.”

Contrast these “unlawful” rules with those deemed to simply require “employees to be respectful to customers or competitors:”

  • “Making inappropriate gestures, including visual staring.”
  • Any logos or graphics worn by employees “must not reflect any form of violent, discriminatory, abusive, offensive, demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional message.”
  • “[T]hreatening, intimidating, coercing, or otherwise interfering with the job performance of fellow employees or visitors.”
  • No “harassment of employees, patients or facility visitors.”

With the foregoing examples in mind, it is compelling to review the Memorandum and look carefully at existing handbooks, policies and procedures to attempt to modify any that appear to be clearly prohibited. This will not be an easy task since the rules found to be unlawful are written very similarly to those found to be lawful. The Memorandum does not provide sufficient clarity to enable a review of existing handbooks in order to quickly correct rules or policies that would appear to violate the law. For example, Griffin found the following rules “unlawfully overbroad since employees would reasonably construe them to ban protected criticism or protests regarding their supervisor’s management or the employer in general.”

  • “[B]e respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  • Do “not make fun of, denigrate, or defame your co-workers, customers, franchisees, suppliers, the Company, or our competitors.”

Concerning employees’ right to criticize an employer’s labor policies, the NLRB determined the following rules unlawfully overbroad because they would reasonably be read to require employees to refrain from criticizing the employer in public:

  • “Refrain from any action that would harm persons or property or cause damage to the Company’s business or reputation.”
  • “[I]t is important that employees practice caution and discretion when posting content [on social media] that could affect [the Employer’s] business operation or reputation.”
  • Do not make “[s]tatements “that damage the company or the company’s reputation or that disrupt or damage the company’s business relationships.”

The following rules, which look quite similar, were found to be lawful:

  • No “rudeness or unprofessional behavior toward a customer, or anyone in contact with” the company.
  • “Employees will not be discourteous or disrespectful to a customer or any member of the public while in the course and scope of [company] business.”

Since the various examples provided in the Memorandum can be so difficult to distinguish, a suggested approach would be to review the handbook and change any rules that the NLRB would find clearly unlawful.

This article does not constitute, and should not be considered, legal advice. Individuals are urged to consult with an attorney on their own specific legal matters.

[1] The Memorandum (GC 15-04) can be accessed on the website of the National Labor Relations Board at under “General Counsel Memos.”

Legal Disclaimer

Please note that the materials contained within this web site have been prepared by Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. for informational purposes only so that readers may learn more about the firm, the services it provides the background of its attorneys, and recent developments in the law. These materials do not constitute, and should not be considered, legal advice, and you are urged to consult with an attorney on your own specific legal matters. Transmission of the information contained in the Jennings, Strouss & Salmon web site is not intended to create, and receipt by the reader does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Jennings, Strouss & Salmon or any of its individual attorneys. While we would certainly like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Please do not send us any information about a matter that may involve you until you receive written authorization to do so from one of our attorneys. Unless otherwise indicated in individual attorney biographies, attorneys resident in the firm's various offices are not certified by the Board of Legal Specialization or a similar body of any State. This site may contain hyperlinks to Web sites operated by parties' independent from Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. Such hyperlinks are provided for your reference only. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon does not control such Web sites, and is not responsible for their content. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon's inclusion of hyperlinks to such Web sites does not imply any endorsement of the material on such Web sites or any association with their content. Your access and use of such sites, including information, material, products, and services therein, shall be solely at your own risk. Further, because the privacy policy of this Site is applicable only when you are on this Site, once linked to another Web site, you should read that site's privacy policy before disclosing any personal information.