Key Topics
-
Proposed Changes in Rules for Forming Labor Unions
-
Employees’ Requests to Have Co-Worker
Present During Investigatory Interviews
-
Legality of Confidentiality and
Anti-Fraternization Policies
As a recent Wall Street Journal article outlined, labor unions are
ramping up their efforts to make an impact in the November 2008
elections. One of labor’s focal points is the “Employee Free Choice
Act,” which proposes to change (a) the rules for forming unions, (b)
the way first contracts between unions and employers are negotiated,
and (c) how employees’ rights are enforced. With regard to
formation rules, the current union certification process is
conducted via a supervised election and secret ballot. If the
Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, the National Labor Relations
Board (“NLRB”) would be authorized to certify a union once a
majority of employees have signed a union authorization card.
However, this new certification procedure lacks confidentiality,
increasing the potential for peer pressure, harassment, and
intimidation to influence an employee’s choice.
The Employee Free Choice Act passed in the House of Representatives
on March 1, 2007, but is currently stalled in the Senate, making it
unlikely that the bill will pass during the current Congress.
However, the bill has been introduced during each of the past three
Congresses and will assuredly be introduced once again after the
next President and Congress are installed in 2009.
Another labor-related employment issue that may be sensitive to the
outcome of the 2008 elections concerns the right of employees to
have a co-worker present during an interview or hearing that may
lead to disciplinary action. While union workers are guaranteed
this right, the NLRB has flip-flopped (and commentators note that
these changes have coincided with changes in the political
persuasion of the White House) as to whether the same right applies
to non-union employees. Currently, employers are not obligated to
grant a non-union employee’s request to have a co-worker present
during an investigatory interview. Depending on the circumstances,
however, denying such requests may not necessarily be the “best
practice.”
Speaking of the NLRB and the right of employees to engage in mutual
aid and protection, this is a good time to remind employers of two
decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that
impact non-union workplaces. The policies at issue in these cases
involved confidentiality and anti-fraternization provisions in
employee handbooks, respectively. In both cases, the D.C. Circuit
found that the broad language used by employers had potential to
chill employees’ exercise of their rights and, therefore,
constituted an unfair labor practice. In light of these decisions,
employers should review their confidentiality and
anti-fraternization policies to ensure they are sufficiently
specific and do not run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act’s
protection of employees’ rights to discuss the terms and conditions
of their employment.
If you have any questions
on this topic or other employment law related
issues,
please contact
Susie Gibbons at 919.783.2813 or
sgibbons@poynerspruill.com or
Andy
Petesch at 919.783.1078 or
apetesch@poynerspruill.com.