NLRB Provides Updated Guidance on Employer Policies and Handbooks

Q:        How does the current National Labor Relations Board view employee handbook policies?

A:        Under the Trump administration, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has shifted in a more employer-friendly direction, including with respect to workplace policies.  In a December 2017 decision, the NLRB reassessed the standard for evaluating when neutral workplace rules violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In that decision, the Board defined three categories of employer handbook rules and policies: (1) rules that are generally lawful; (2) rules that warrant individualized scrutiny; and (3) rules that are plainly unlawful.

Those three categories were expanded in June 6, 2018, when the Board’s General Counsel issued a new Guidance Memorandum (18-04), providing updated guidance on how regional NLRB offices should investigate unfair labor practice charges involving employer handbook language and rules.

Category 1 Rules:  The Board has determined that employee handbook policies in this category generally are lawful, either because the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, or because the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by the business justification associated with employer policy.  The examples provided in the Guidance Memorandum of the types of rules that fall into this category include:

  • Civility rules prohibiting “disparaging, or offensive language”;
  • No-photography and no-recording rules;
  • Rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations;
  • Disruptive behavior rules (for example, prohibiting conduct that creates a disturbance on company premises or creates discord with clients or fellow employees);
  • Rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents;
  • Rules against defamation or misrepresentation;
  • Rules against using employer logos or intellectual property;
  • Rules requiring authorization to speak for the company; and
  • Rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment.

Category 2 Rules:   The Board has concluded that Category 2 rules are not “obviously lawful or unlawful, and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the rule would interfere with rights guaranteed by the NLRA, and if so, whether any adverse impact on those rights is outweighed by legitimate justifications.” The Guidance Memorandum provides examples of rules that fall into this category, including the following:

  • Broad conflict-of-interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union;
  • Confidentiality rules broadly encompassing “employer business” or “employee information” (as opposed to confidentiality rules regarding customer or proprietary information, which would be considered lawful, or confidentiality rules more specifically directed at employee wages, terms of employment, or working conditions, which is prohibited);
  • Rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer (as opposed to civility rules regarding disparagement of employees, which is considered a lawful Category One rule);
  • Rules regulating use of the employer’s name (as opposed to rules regulating use of the employer’s logo/trademark, which is allowed as a Category One rule);
  • Rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties (as opposed to rules restricting speaking to the media on the employer’s behalf, which is a lawful Category One rule );
  • Rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer (as opposed to a rule banning insubordinate or disruptive conduct at work, which is a permitted Category One rule, or a rule specifically banning participation in outside organizations, which is an unlawful Category Three rule); and
  • Rules against making false or inaccurate statements (as opposed to lawful rules against making defamatory statements).

Category 3 Rules: The Board has found that rules in this category are generally unlawful because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on the rights guaranteed by the NLRA outweighs any justifications associated with the rule. The examples provided in the Guidance Memorandum of the types of rules that fall into this category include:

  • Confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions (such as a rule prohibiting employees from disclosing salaries and contents of employment contracts); and
  • Rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer.

The Memorandum also advises the regional NLRB offices that they should no longer find unlawful any rule that could be interpreted as covering Section 7 activity and should now focus on whether the rule in question would actually be interpreted to cover Section 7 activity. The Memorandum instructs regional offices that “ambiguities in rules are no longer interpreted against the drafter, and generalized provisions should not be interpreted as banning all activity that could conceivably be included.”

Takeaways

The Board has moved significantly in the direction of limiting its influence over employer handbook policies. Whether a particular employer rule is lawful, however, may rest on subtle differences in policy language. Moreover, the Guidance Memorandum does not provide an exhaustive list of all lawful and unlawful handbook policies. For assistance in ensuring that your handbook rules do not impinge on employee rights to engage in concerted activity, we recommend consulting with labor and employment counsel.

Leigh McMonigle

 

New Jersey Minimum Wage to Increase to $15.00 by 2024

Q: I have employees who work in New Jersey.  What do I need to know about the minimum wage increase?

A: New Jersey recently passed a law that will raise the minimum wage by increments over the next five years.  The minimum wage, which currently is $8.85 per hour, will increase to $10.00 per hour on July 1, 2019.  It will rise to $11.00 per hour on January 1, 2020, and will increase by one dollar each subsequent year until January 1, 2024, when it will land at $15.00.  Future minimum wage increases after 2024 will be tied to inflation.

In enacting this law, New Jersey joins California, New York, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia on the list of states that have enacted legislation to implement a $15 minimum wage. Including New Jersey, nineteen states have or will increase their minimum wage in 2019.  A bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives would raise the national minimum wage to $15, far higher than the current federal hourly rate of $7.25.

While there are no exemptions for teen workers, under the New Jersey law, employees of small employers (defined as those companies who employ five or fewer employees) and seasonal employees are subject to a different minimum wage increase schedule. For these employees, the current minimum wage will increase to $10.30 on January 1, 2020, and then by $0.80 on January 1 of each subsequent year, up to $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2026.

Seasonal employment is defined as employment by an employer: (1) who exclusively provides services in a continuous period of not more than 10 weeks during June, July, August, or September; (2) for whom 2/3 or more of the employer’s gross receipts for the immediately preceding calendar year were received in a continuous period of less than 16 weeks; or (3) for which at least 75% of the wages paid by the employer during the immediately preceding year were paid for work performed during a single calendar quarter. Seasonal employment also includes employment by a non-profit or government entity during the period of May 1 to September 30 (so long as the employee is not employed by the employer outside of the period).

To prepare for the law, employers should ensure their annual budgets account for the increases, and that payroll personnel are prepared to implement them.

Jessica Rothenberg

Another Reset of NLRB’s Independent Contractor Test

Q.  What is the current standard for determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the NLRA?

A.   On Jan. 25, 2019, the Republican-led National Labor Relations Board affirmed the acting regional director’s decision that drivers of a shared airport ride service were independent contractors, not employees, and therefore not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

The decision, which reverts back to the common law test for determining independent contractor status, will have a wide-ranging impact on other gig economy companies.

To read the full article, click here.

-Tracey E. Diamond and Susan K. Lessack

Employers May Have to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Users Under Some State Laws

Q: Can my company refuse to hire or terminate an individual because the individual is a medical marijuana user?

A: Not necessarily.  While we have not seen any laws to date explicitly requiring employers to accommodate employees’ use of marijuana for medicinal purposes while at work, in some states at least, employers may not terminate employees for their use of medical marijuana outside of the workplace, even if it means that the employee tests positive in a drug screen.

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, as of January 23, 2019, a total of 33 states and Washington, D.C.—including every state in the Mid-Atlantic—has a comprehensive medical marijuana program. At the federal level, marijuana still is considered to be an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act.  However, the U.S. Department of Justice’s current guidance on prosecution for marijuana-related offenses allows federal prosecutors to decide how and whether to prosecute marijuana-related crimes.

Many state laws governing the use of medical marijuana contain provisions addressing the intersection of medical marijuana and employment. While state governments have an interest in protecting users of medical marijuana from discrimination based on their status as a medical marijuana user, they also have recognized the duty of employers to protect co-workers and the general public by ensuring that medical marijuana users do not come to work or operate dangerous equipment while under the influence of marijuana.

The Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, for example, provides that employers cannot discriminate or retaliate against an employee solely on the basis of the “employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana.” At the same time, employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana on employer property or premises.  Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s law permits employers to discipline or terminate an employee who is under the influence of medical marijuana in the workplace or who performs work while under the influence of medical marijuana “when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position.”

Given that state-sanctioned use of medical marijuana is relatively new, there are few cases interpreting state medical marijuana laws with regard to employment. The case Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, 338 F. Supp. 3d 78 (D. Conn. 2018), is a recent federal court decision interpreting Connecticut’s medical marijuana law.  Connecticut’s law contains an “anti-discrimination provision” that bars an employer from refusing to hire a person or from “discharging, penalizing or threatening an employee” solely because of the person’s status as a “qualifying medical marijuana patient under state law.” The statute also provides, however, that an employer could refuse to hire a medical marijuana user if “required by federal law or required to obtain funding.”

In Noffsinger, the plaintiff accepted a job offer (contingent on passing a drug test) from the defendant employer.  Prior to taking the drug test, the plaintiff informed the employer that she was an approved user of medical marijuana under state law, and that she utilized medical marijuana to treat her post-traumatic stress disorder.  When plaintiff’s drug test came back positive for marijuana, the employer rescinded the job offer and refused to hire the plaintiff.  In doing so, the employer acted on the basis that it maintained a “zero tolerance” drug policy and that marijuana is illegal under federal law.  The plaintiff sued under the medical marijuana law’s non-discrimination provision.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the employer violated Connecticut’s medical marijuana law. The court paid little heed to defendant’s argument that it was required to reject plaintiff for employment because the federal Drug Free Workplace Act (DFWA) barred it from hiring plaintiff.  In coming to this conclusion, the court wrote that the DFWA neither required drug testing nor prohibited employers from employing someone who uses medical marijuana outside the workplace.  The court also stated that the DFWA did not require a “zero tolerance” drug policy.  The court then concluded that the Connecticut statute protects a qualified user’s use of medical marijuana outside work hours.

We will surely see an uptick in medical marijuana related litigation as more jurisdictions adopt medical marijuana laws, and as more employers make decisions regarding the employment of medical marijuana users. If one of your employees is a user of medical marijuana and you have concerns about your company’s obligations and/or responsibilities with regard to such use, contact any member of the Pepper Hamilton Labor & Employment team.

– Lee E. Tankle

Are No-Hire Provisions Now Void and Unenforceable Under Pennsylvania Law?

Q.  Can two business entities agree not to hire each other’s employees?

A.  On January 11, an en banc panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court’s decision declaring that a no-hire provision in a commercial contract between two businesses was void and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law. Over the past 18 months, no-poach and no-hire provisions have received nationwide attention for their effects on employees’ wages and mobility. They have been attacked by antitrust authorities, politicians and the plaintiffs’ bar as illegal agreements under state and federal antitrust laws. But the Superior Court’s analysis of the no-hire provision under common law — not antitrust law — may have more far-reaching ramifications for commercial contracting in Pennsylvania, as it could make all no-hire provisions unenforceable. In its opinion, the Superior Court departed from other authority holding that ancillary no-hire provisions between commercial parties are generally enforceable so long as they protect a party’s legitimate interest and are reasonable in scope and duration. This case is worth watching to see if it is appealed and, if so, whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows the decision to stand.

For more information, click here.

A. Christopher Young and Robyn R. English-Mezzino