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 advises employers on developing compliant employment policies and handbooks to avoid employment claims and minimize liability ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Affirmative Action
- FMLA
- Labor Law
- Immigration
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Diversity
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- FLSA
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Employer Rules
- National Enforcement Plan
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Holiday Policies
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Paid Leave Laws
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Litigation
- IRS
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
