Advertisement

May 25, 2013

NLRB Invalidates Off-Duty Access Rule

The National Labor Relations Board continues to slice and dice employer policies and has now ruled that a hospital policy restricting employees’ off-duty access violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

USC University Hospital in Los Angeles has an Off-Duty Access Policy which provides that: “Off-duty employees are not allowed to enter or re-enter the interior of the Hospital or any other work areas outside the Hospital except to visit a patient, receive medical treatment or to conduct hospital-related business.” The policy also defines hospital-related business as the “pursuit of the employee’s normal duties or duties as specifically directed by management.”

The Board, in a 2 to 1 decision, applied Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976), to the USC Hospital policy. In Tri-County, the Board previously held that an employer’s rule which barred off-duty employees access to a facility is valid only if it limits access solely to the interior of the facility, is clearly disseminated to all employees, and applies to all off-duty access for all purposes, not just for union activity.

The acting general counsel in this case asserted and Board members Pearce and Griffin agreed that the USC Hospital Policy failed to meet the third prong of the test because it allowed the Hospital to say, effectively, you can enter the facilities only when we tell you you can enter the facilities. Pearce and Griffin disagreed with the position asserted by Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and upheld the first two exceptions in the USC Hospital Policy (entering for medical care or to see a patient) as valid exceptions. However, Pearce and Griffin said the third (to “conduct hospital-related business”) violated Tri-County and the Board’s subsequent decision in St. John’s Medical Center, 357 NLRB No. 170 (2011). In St. John’s, the Board ruled that a policy that barred off-duty access except for “employer-sponsored events” violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

A copy of the NLRB’s decision can be accessed here. It’s entitled Sodexo America LLC because Sodexo is the subcontractor that provides food-related services in the hospital and its employees are represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Gerald F. (“Jerry”) Lutkus is a partner in the South Bend office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP where he is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law and Litigation Departments. He practices in the areas of labor and employment law counseling and litigation, arbitration, collective bargaining, media law, including counseling of and defense litigation for media companies and commercial and business litigation.

574-237-1118

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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.