[d4nth3m4n]

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/.../eye7_2005.cfm

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..." While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.

On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardsmark's fraternization rule was lawful.1 The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section 7. But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else. She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."

While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different. Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.

Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights? And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?

America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace

thoughts?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Does this mean you can't hit on a co-worker in the USA?? If so I'm against this!

cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

If my employer gave me a copy of that policy, I would inform them of their Constitutional right to kiss my ass.

Seriously, if they fired me for being personable, but I really liked my job, I'd just start a competing company and hire off all their best employees (who would obviously be unemployed at that point). It's been done before.

[SVass]

The NLRB is appointed by the current "A**holes" in power; thus, they reflect the attitude of the president. Any employer may fire any employee for any reason other than being a minority or of the wrong sex. Quit relying on your employer for anything is he/she is an ****. Another way to phrase this is to say that it is "judicial activism" to require employers to be nice. Our current group of masters are opposed to "activism". sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/.../eye7_2005.cfm



thoughts?

That summary seems to be a bit slanted, which, I suppose isn't surprising given the POV of the source. Take a look at the actual
opinion. The relevant discussion is on page 2. It makes clear that Section 7 rights are not implicated. Workers at that employment place are still free to meet to discuss their terms and conditions of employment, which is what the National Labor Relations Act actually covers.

The reason that the NLRA covers that, and only that is that Section 7 is the right that employees have to organize themselves (not necessarily in a union). The law is not a general right to socialize, but a narrower right to organize.

Most employers obviously wouldn't bother with a policy about off-duty fraternization. This one apparently did because of security concerns related to the nature of employment. The impartial Administrative Law Judge* found that their justification wasn't directed at inhibiting collective bargaining, and the Board (as is usually the case) found no reason to overrule the ALJ. The Board and the ALJ make clear that if they did find what the union alleges, then they would force the employer to change that policy. But they didn't find the evidence there. That's how these cases are supposed to be resolved. You only punish when there is an actual violation.

However, notice that as part of the remedy for the violation the Board did find that the employer will be forced to post a notice for the employees reminding them of their Section 7 rights and an affirmation by the employer that it will not interfere with those rights. It's on page 4, take a look. That seems to be a sensible resolution. It clarifies to all concerned that the workers have certain rights.

Basically, the union is just screaming because it lost that part of the case, although it won the case overall. Unions obviously come to this kind of issue with a bias, but the law here is designed to be neutral. It neither seeks to limit union activity, nor give it an advantage. That's the balance that Congress struck back in the 1940s.


* It's worth stressing that while the Board is appointed politically, the Judge whose decision the Board affirmed is not. ALJs are civil servants. They are non-article III judges, but they have a significant degree of autonomy. This case turned on the facts, and the Board is obligated to give great deference to the ALJ's findings of facts.

[GranolaBoy]

Simey knows his shiat. Tip of the hat to you, Limey.


All I got out of it was that corporate entities are apt to encourage a backlash if too many things like this happen. Power to the people, and so on.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

Simey knows his shiat. Tip of the hat to you, Limey.

Thanks. Too bad Labor Law was my lowest grade in law school.

A fun class though.