I’ve had a little more time to digest the latest memo from the NLRB opining on what is and what isn’t appropriate for employers to have in their policies. And I’ve come to a very serious conclusion:

It’s an utter mess. 

New Guidance = Utter Mess

(Fellow employment lawyers use the phrases “bungled mess” (Jon Hyman), “not good” (Molly DiBianca), and “Inconsistent, overreaching, it’s a hot tepid mess” (Eric Meyer) to describe the latest missive.)

For employers, make no mistake: This is the NLRB’s attempt at an all-out, crazy assault on an employer’s ability to have policies that have any teeth to them. Even the most innocuous of policies can get shot down by the NLRB as being over broad and illegal. 

For example, telling employees “Don’t release confidential guest, team member or company information. . . .” is now deemed to be “illegal” because it could, in the NLRB’s view, “reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting employees from discussing and disclosing information regarding their own conditions of employment, as well as the conditions of employment of employees other than themselves–activities that are clearly protected by Section 7.”Continue Reading After NLRB’s Memo, Drafting Employment Policies Got Trickier

Various labor & employment blogs over the last week have been nearly hyperventilating over another complaint by a regional NLRB office challenging an employer’s practices as it relates to employee use of Facebook.

For anyone who has been tracking the NLRB’s actions, these filings really should come as no surprise anymore.

[caption id=”attachment_1581″ align=”alignright”

Yesterday, I started my recap of the Connecticut Bar Association seminar on social media & employment law that I had the opportunity to speak at. 

In today’s post, I’m going to focus on another portion of what NLRB Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg said at the seminar — something that may impact employers that have

The news came late Monday: The NLRB’s case against an employer for allegedly firing an employee due to a Facebook post had settled.  The background of that case can be found in one of my November 2010 posts.  The case name is: American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., 34-CA-12576.

The terms of the settlement were not

While the legislative session was a relatively quiet one, a few provisions found in a comprehensive domestic violence bill do have some direct implications for employers in Connecticut and create a new leave provision that will require some attention from human resources personnel.  Many employers will be unaffected by the provisions, but those who