In a reversal of precedent, a divided National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held yesterday that employees have a right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes, including statutorily protected communications regarding the terms and conditions of their employment and regarding union organizing efforts. See Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (December 11, 2014). The NLRB’s ruling stemmed from a case brought by the Communications Workers of America union after it unsuccessfully attempted to organize employees of Purple Communications, Inc., a company that provides interpreting services for the deaf and hearing-impaired. The union argued that prohibiting the company’s workers from using the company’s email system for non-business purposes and on behalf of organizations not associated with the company interfered with the CWA’s organizing efforts.
Since the NLRB’s 2007 decision in Register Guard, employers were allowed to prohibit employees from using employer-owned email systems for non-work purposes, including activity protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. In Purple Communications, the Administrative Law Judge relied on Register Guard and held that the employer could lawfully limit the use of its email systems in that manner. The NLRB, however, expressly overruled the Register Guard decision, and held:
Consistent with the purposes and policies of the act and our obligation to accommodate the competing rights of employers and employees, we decide today that employee use of email for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must be presumptively permitted by employers who have chosen to give employees access to their email systems.
The Board reasoned that the Register Guard decision placed too much emphasis on employers’ property rights and too little on the importance of email as a means of workplace communication and therefore failed to adequately protect employees’ rights under the Act. The majority limited its decision, noting it applied only to workers who have already been granted access to their employer’s email system, and that employers would still have the opportunity to demonstrate that special circumstances necessary to maintain production or discipline justify restricting its employees’ rights.
We will continue monitoring the fallout from this decision, including whether the decision is challenged. At this time, employers are encouraged to review existing communication and email use policies to determine whether they must be rescinded or revised in light of this decision. It is important for employers to make an assessment as to the continuing validity of policies limiting non-business use of email systems, including whether revision to such policies based upon specific business circumstances may insulate a revised policy from challenge under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- Of Counsel
Caroline Musekamp's practice is concentrated in the area of labor and employment law. Caroline has extensive experience representing clients in employment litigation involving various employment claims, including ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- E-Discovery
- Securities Law
- Coronavirus
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- ESI
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Technology
- ERISA
- Stock Drop
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Cryptocurrency
- SEC
- Securities Litigation
- Ascertainability
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- EEOC
- Electronically Stored Information
- FLSA
- Proportionality
- Telecommuting
- Business Process Improvement
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- Employment Litigation
- Lenders
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRB
- Receivership Statute
- Unions
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Evidence
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Subpoena
- Arbitration
- CAFA
- Land Use & Zoning
- Construction Litigation
- Privacy
- Statute of Limitations
- Taxation
- Federal Rule
Recent Posts
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!