March 26, 2007 |
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer |
Employee Fraternization Policies Held to Violate the NLRA
The bloggers at Sheppard Mullin have a well written post discussing a recent D.C. Circuit Court opinion on the subject of non-fraternization policies. Many employers implement these polices as part of their efforts to reduce sexual harassment claims in the workplace. Unfortunately, a broad policy statement in a sexual harassment policy can result in a conflict with the National Labor Relations Board - whether you have a union or not!
In it's discussion, they note that:
Follow this link for Sheppard Mullin's thorough discussion on non-fraternization policies, and the NLRA.
In it's discussion, they note that:
Employees were not permitted to "fraternize on or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." A local union challenged Guardsmark's "fraternization rule" on the grounds that it discouraged protected labor activity—such as the right to join a union or bargain collectively—in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, by prohibiting employees from meeting with each other to discuss the terms and conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Board sided with Guardsmark. The Board found that Guardsmark employees reasonably understood that the non-fraternization rule was designed solely to prohibit interpersonal relationships that could compromise a security guard's judgment and, therefore, did not preclude protected labor activity.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed, and held that the plain language of Guardsmark's "fraternization rule" could be reasonably interpreted as prohibiting protected activity.
Follow this link for Sheppard Mullin's thorough discussion on non-fraternization policies, and the NLRA.
