Connecticut Employment Law Blog : Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

In posts earlier this week, I've discussed what the NLRB's Connecticut Office is doing and what to expect for 2010. 

But as I continue to recap the breakfast I attended earlier in the week with NLRB (Region 34) Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg, of particular importance to employers was the discussion about what issues the NLRB may see reoccur from time to time.  The NLRB recapped some of these in its January 2010 newsletter and its worth a read through (page 4).

Here are some highlights from our discussion:

• Kreisberg indicated that employer rules that have broad confidentiality provisions prohibiting employees from discussing wages, benefits and working conditions with co-workers are likely to be struck down. While protecting "trade secrets" is a legitimate concern, he indicated that many employer rules -- in his view -- go too far. 
• He also said that rules that prohibit employees from discussing non-confidential matters with the media are likely overbroad, though rules that restrict an employee from talking with the media as the company's "spokesman" may be more palatable. For more information, he pointed to a relatively new NLRB case which discusses this in more detail: Trump Marina Assocs., 354 NLRB 123 (2009).
• Kreisberg also noted that anti-solicitation rules may be properly drafted so long as the rule does not prohibit employees from distributing written materials during non-working time in non-working areas.  Kreisberg said however that employers often run into difficulties in the selective application of the rule. (And in this time of Girl Scout cookies, it's a good reminder.)
• He did note that employers can prohibit the use of employer's e-mail system for union solicitation but he again cautioned that selective enforcement of the rules could lead to issues with the NLRB down the road.  
• We also discussed "anti-harassment" policies. For the most part, if such policies are in the context of discrimination/hostile work environment discussions, he did not see much of an issue with it.  But he indicated that the NLRB will look to see if the application of the rule is showing an anti-union bias.  He also reminded everyone that during elections, the NLRB seems to allow behavior (particularly from union personnel) that might not otherwise be tolerated if in the context of daily working activities.
• Lastly,  Kreisberg indicated that the NLRB had produced a video designed to inform the public about the role of the Agency in conducting elections. It is also available on DVD upon request to employers and others.  (And he noted that if an employer uses this video during an election, it would pass muster as an neutral educational video.)

So what's the bottom line for employers? 

• Review your confidentiality, anti-solicitation and anti-harassment policies to ensure that they will pass muster under scrutiny.
• Perhaps more importantly, educate staff about the appropriate application of the policy to union activities.
• And finally, even if you do NOT yet have a union at the workplace, these rules (such as blanket prohibitions on employees' discussions of wages) may still apply, so if you're concerned, be sure to seek appropriate legal counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Continuing the summer series on the basics of some employment laws in Connecticut, we turn this week to laws regarding working conditions.

Indeed, while the anti-discrimination laws and FMLA laws get all the press, there are a whole host of other laws that regulate the workplace conditions.  These are no less important and ignoring this rules can often lead to a larger investigation on workplace issues.

Here are a few to remember:

• Meal or Rest Periods: Every employee who works at least 7 1/2 hours, is entitled to a consecutive 30 minute period for a meal.  This meal period cannot occur in the first 2 hours or last 2 hours of work, unless there is a written agreement in place.  The DOL has set up various exceptions however for public safety or because of the nature of the position.   (Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51ii.)
   
• Breastfeeding in the Workplace: Every employee who wishes to express breast milk or breastfeed at work can do so during a meal or rest period.  Employers are obligated to find a suitable room or other location (other than a toilet stall) where the employee can express her milk in private.  (Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-40w.)
   
• Electronic Monitoring: I've previously covered this more extensively in various posts like this one, but suffice to say that Connecticut allows employers to monitor their employees so long as the employees have prior written notice of such monitoring (with limited exceptions).
  
  To provide the notice, the employer must indicate the types of monitoring that may occur, such as telephonic, key strokes, general computer usage, etc. Each employer must post this in a conspicuous place (typically, where an employer has its other "bulletin board" notices, like the minimum wage rate). Putting a reference in an employee handbook is also a wise precaution in case the notice ever gets removed from the board (and it should be noted that notice in a handbook is likely sufficient under the terms of the statute.)(Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-48d.).
  
  If an employer does not routinely monitor employees the employer can still conduct the monitoring in situations where "(A) an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that employees are engaged in conduct which (i) violates the law, (ii) violates the legal rights of the employer or the employer's employees, or (iii) creates a hostile workplace environment."
   
• No Polygraph Tests: Connecticut also has a blanket prohibition on the use of polygraph (lie-detector) tests by employers for employment purposes (with the exception of such police or correctional facilities) . (Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51g.)
  
  Interestingly, the ban on polygraphs appears limited to situations where the employer "requests or requires" any employee or prospective employee to submit to or take a lie detector test as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment (and cannot discipline an employee for failing to do so.) Of course, that leaves open a question of whether an employer - as part of an investigation - can ask an employee to do so.  But even in that case, it may run afoul of federal laws on the subject. Suffice to say that any employer wishing to use lie detector tests should consult with counsel about it. 

(Photo: Library of Congress, Women workers employed as wipers in the roundhouse having lunch in their rest room, C. & N.W. R.R., Clinton, Iowa, 1943)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link