ILNews

DTCI: Beware of overly broad media policies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

gesslingBy Joshua B. Gessling

The National Labor Relations Board continues to be very active in evaluating employee handbook provisions that may affect the rights of union and nonunion employees to engage in protected, concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

A three-member panel recently issued its decision in DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings LLC and struck down several of the company’s employee handbook provisions. The NLRB declared the employer’s media policy, which prohibited employees from contacting the media, to be overly broad and unlawful because it could be reasonably construed by employees to limit the Section 7 right to discuss labor disputes with media. Consistent with several other recent decisions, the NLRB found that the employer’s policy made no attempt to distinguish between protected and unprotected activity. Furthermore, the employer’s policy required that employees obtain authorization from the employer before making comments regarding the employer to media. The board found this requirement to be unlawful, holding that the employer may not require an employee to obtain permission to engage in protected, concerted off-duty activity.

The NLRB also struck down the employer’s handbook provision on the employer’s confidentiality rules, which prohibited employees from discussing details about the job, company business or projects with anyone outside the company. The board found this provision to be unlawful because employees could reasonably understand the rule to prohibit employees from discussing wages and other terms and conditions of employment. The board also believed the employer’s rule could be reasonably understood to prevent employees from communicating with union representatives, NLRB agents or other governmental agencies regarding workplace issues, which provided an additional basis for its determination.

Employers should evaluate internal policies and employee handbooks to ensure that all company rules are consistent with legal developments. For additional information on how DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings LLC affects your media, confidentiality and other employee handbook provisions, contact this author or a member of the Labor and Employment Group at Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP.•

Mr. Gessling is an associate in the Evansville office of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT