Advertisement

April 16, 2014

NLRB Attacks Employment At-Will Disclaimers

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently challenged employment at-will disclaimers in employee handbooks. This is another example of the NLRB’s expansion of its enforcement efforts beyond the traditional unionized workplace setting. The NLRB has also recently taken issue with employers’ social media policies and sought to require employers to post notices to employees informing them of their right to join a labor union and other rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The agency is clearly becoming more active and looking for ways to regulate a broader group of employers than it has in the past.

At-will employment disclaimers are a staple of employee handbooks.  It is common to define what at-will employment means, explain that an employee’s at-will status cannot be changed except in a writing signed by the company president, and require that an employee sign an acknowledgment of his or her at-will status. This approach protects employers from claims that employees have employment contracts, and it is now under attack by the NLRB.

Two recent actions demonstrate the NLRB’s new scrutiny of these employment at-will disclaimers.  In February, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled the American Red Cross Arizona Blood Services Region violated Section 8(a)(1) of NLRA by having a provision in its employee handbook acknowledgment saying, “I further agree that the at-will employment relationship cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way.”  The ALJ ruled this provision could be interpreted to limit employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity in an effort to change their at-will status.  The NLRA protects employees’ rights to engage in “concerted activity” to seek changes to the terms and conditions of their employment.  The Red Cross revised its disclaimer, but the ALJ nonetheless required the Red Cross to inform its employees that the disclaimer had been revoked and removed from its handbook acknowledgment and post a notice to employees assuring them that it would not violate their NLRA rights.

Also in February, the NLRB filed a complaint against Hyatt Hotels Corporation arguing the company’s required employee handbook acknowledgement form violated the NLRA’s protection of concerted activity.  The NLRB alleged that several provisions in Hyatt’s handbook acknowledgement were overly broad and unlawfully limited employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity.  Those provisions were:

  • “I understand my employment is ‘at will.’”
  • “I acknowledge that no oral or written statements or representations regarding my employment can alter my at-will employment status, except for a written statement signed by me” and Hyatt’s president or executive vice president/COO.
  • “[T]he at-will status of my employment… can only be changed in a writing” signed by the employee and one of the two Hyatt executives.

This matter was settled before there was a hearing on the complaint, with Hyatt agreeing to delete these at-will disclaimers from its handbook acknowledgment form, notify employees that the disclaimers had been revoked and removed from its handbook acknowledgment, and post a notice to employees assuring them that it would not violate their NLRA rights.

The NLRB’s focus on employment at-will disclaimers is another example of the agency’s increased enforcement efforts that can affect all employers – even those that don’t have unionized workplaces.  The complaints against the  Red Cross and Hyatt are the first attacks the NLRB has ever made against these common at-will disclaimers in handbook acknowledgments.  These enforcement actions are an alarming development for employers due to the prevalence of such disclaimers in handbooks and handbook acknowledgment forms and their importance in defending against employee claims.  Employers should have their employment at-will disclaimers in employee handbooks, handbook acknowledgment forms and other personnel documents reviewed by counsel to be sure they do not unlawfully limit employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity under the new analysis being used by the NLRB.

© 2014 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Kevin represents employers in many areas of labor and employment law, including race, age, gender, religion, national original, and disability employment discrimination claims, wrongful discharge claims, and wage and hour claims. He defends clients before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, and the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, in state and federal courts, and in arbitrations. Kevin also provides guidance to management to ensure employment practices are in full compliance with all applicable statutes and...

919-783-2853

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.