April 18, 2014

NLRB Decision Regarding Confidentiality of Employer Investigations

As a result of a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)[1], non-union employers who have a practice or policy that prohibits employees from discussing ongoing internal investigations of workplace misconduct could be violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

James Navarro was employed as a sterile technician at Banner Estrella Medical Center (the “Hospital”) in Phoenix, Arizona.  Sterile processing technicians are responsible for the proper care and handling of all surgical instruments.  One day, Navarro found there was a broken steampipe and, consequently, a lack of hot water and steam pressure needed to sterilize surgical instruments used in certain surgeries.  Navarro apprised the necessary facility personnel and was ordered to use another machine – a low-temperature sterilizer – to clean the instruments and hot water from the coffee machine in the break room.  Navarro responded that he did not believe either of these procedures met established standards and that he did not want to endanger patients.  As a result, he did not clean or sterilize his instruments that day.  Management contended that Navarro had refused to follow instructions and been insubordinate.  Navarro eventual received a non-disciplinary coaching, and was asked not to discuss the matter with his coworkers while the issue was being investigated.

During and before this investigation, HR routinely asked Hospital employees making a complaint not to discuss the matter with their coworkers during the Hospital’s ongoing investigations.  In addition, each Hospital employee hired was required to sign a confidentiality agreement stating, among other things, that they were barred from discussing other employees’ salaries and disciplinary actions unless such information was originally disclosed by the original employee.

In its decision, the NLRB stated that, “to justify a prohibition on employee discussion of ongoing investigations, an employer must show that it has a legitimate business justification that outweighs employees’ Section 7 rights.”  Central to Section 7 of the NLRA, is the protected right of an employee to communicate to coworkers about wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.  Although the Hospital contended that its practice of instructing its employees not to discuss ongoing internal investigation matters with coworkers was necessary to protect the integrity of investigations, the NLRB found that such a policy violated the NLRA.

The NLRB has not prohibited employers from requesting that employees keep information about internal investigations confidential in every situation.  Instead, the NLRB held that an employer must first be able to show, on a case-by-case basis, that it has a genuine business justification for confidentiality which outweighs the employee’s Section 7 right to communicate with co-workers.

The NLRB’s decision complicates employers’ ability to protect an investigation’s integrity by keeping them confidential.  The NLRB has shifted the burden to the employer to determine (i) if any witnesses need protection, (ii) if evidence was in danger of being destroyed, and (iii) if there was a need to prevent a cover up.  If these issues or other specific reasons for confidentiality exist, an employer can require confidentiality of these legitimate business needs during an investigation.  If a legitimate business justification has been identified, to best protect themselves, employers should (i) document its reasons for the confidentiality necessity in a memo or written explanation to the investigation file, and (ii) provide a witness with a written explanation of why confidentiality is necessary for that particular investigation.  Employers should also review their policies and employment agreements to ensure they are free of any broad confidentiality policies.  These additional actions as part of an investigation will help employer not run afoul of the NLRB’s ruling.

[1]Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012)

© 2014 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author


Practicing law since 1978, James (Jim) Kizziar represents and counsels the managers and owners of diverse companies and business entities in all aspects of labor and employment law, before federal and state agencies and the courts. His practice includes litigation and preventive counseling of management on issues such as discrimination, harassment, union organizing and wage-hour issues.

Mr. Kizziar conducts employment law training for executives, managers and supervisors. He also is a lecturer and prolific writer on labor law issues, and served...


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 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  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.