30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

employee handbook

To help employers craft handbooks that don’t violate the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a compilation of rules it has found to be illegal — and rewritten them to illustrate how they can comply with the law.

It was issued as a memorandum by NLRB General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr. to “help employers to review their handbooks and other rules, and conform them, if necessary, to ensure they are lawful.”

Specifically, the memorandum points out employer policies found to violate and conform to Section 7 of the NLRA.

The main area of concern

Section 7 mandates that employees be allowed to participate in “concerted activity” to help improve the terms and conditions of their work.

The NLRB has made it abundantly clear recently that it’s on the lookout for rules that:

  • explicitly restrict protected concerted activity, and/or
  • could be construed to restrict protected Section 7 activity.

One thing the memorandum makes very clear: extremely subtle variations in language could be the difference between having a legal policy in the NLRB’s eyes and having one that’s viewed as violating the NLRA.

What to say, what not to say

Here are many of the dos and don’ts highlighted by the memorandum, separated by topic:

Rules regarding confidentiality

  • Illegal: “Do not discuss ‘customer or employee information’ outside of work, including ‘phone numbers [and] addresses.’” The NLRB said, in addition to the overbroad reference to “employee information,” the blanket ban on discussing employee contact info, without regard for how employees obtain that info, is facially illegal.
  • Illegal: “Never publish or disclose [the Employer’s] or another’s confidential or other proprietary information. Never publish or report on conversations that are meant to be private or internal to [the Employer].” The NLRB said a broad reference to “another’s” information, without clarification, would reasonably be interpreted to include other employees’ wages and other terms and conditions of employment.
  • Illegal: Prohibiting employees from “[d]isclosing … details about the [Employer].” The NLRB said this is a broad restriction that failed to clarify that it doesn’t restrict Section 7 activity.
  • Legal: “No unauthorized disclosure of ‘business “secrets” or other confidential information.’”
  • Legal: “Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information not otherwise available to persons or firms outside [Employer] is cause for disciplinary action, including termination.”
  • Legal: “Do not disclose confidential financial data, or other non-public proprietary company information. Do not share confidential information regarding business partners, vendors or customers.”

The NLRB said the last three rules above were legal because: “1) they do not reference information regarding employees or employee terms and conditions of employment, 2) although they use the general term “confidential,” they do not define it in an overbroad manner, and 3) they do not otherwise contain language that would reasonably be construed to prohibit Section 7 communications.”

Rules regarding conduct toward the company and supervisors

  • Illegal: “[B]e respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  • Illegal: “Do ‘not make fun of, denigrate, or defame your co-workers, customers, franchisees, suppliers, the Company, or our competitors.’”
  • Illegal: “Be respectful of others and the Company.”
  • Illegal: “No ‘[d]efamatory, libelous, slanderous or discriminatory comments about [the Company], its customers and/or competitors, its employees or management.’”

The NLRB said the rules above were unlawfully overbroad because: “employees reasonably would construe them to ban protected criticism or protests regarding their supervisors, management, or the employer in general.”

  • Illegal: “Disrespectful conduct or insubordination, including, but not limited to, refusing to follow orders from a supervisor or a designated representative.”
  • Illegal: “‘Chronic resistance to proper work-related orders or discipline, even though not overt insubordination’ will result in discipline.”

The NLRB said the rules above, while banning “insubordination,” also ban “conduct that does not rise to the level of insubordination, which reasonably would be understood as including protected concerted activity.”

  • Illegal: “Refrain from any action that would harm persons or property or cause damage to the Company’s business or reputation.”
  • Illegal: “[I]t is important that employees practice caution and discretion when posting content [on social media] that could affect [the Employer’s] business operation or reputation.”
  • Illegal: “Do not make ‘[s]tatements “that damage the company or the company’s reputation or that disrupt or damage the company’s business relationships.”‘”
  • Illegal: “Never engage in behavior that would undermine the reputation of [the Employer], your peers or yourself.”

The NLRB said the rules above “were unlawfully overbroad because they reasonably would be read to require employees to refrain from criticizing the employer in public.

  • Legal: “No ‘rudeness or unprofessional behavior toward a customer, or anyone in contact with’ the company.”
  • Legal: “Employees will not be discourteous or disrespectful to a customer or any member of the public while in the course and scope of [company] business.”

The NLRB said the rules above are legal because they wouldn’t lead an employee to believe they restrict criticism of the company.

  • Legal: “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, coworkers, customers and vendors.” The NLRB says employees would reasonably understand that this states the employer’s legitimate expectation that employees work together in an atmosphere of civility.
  • Legal: “Each employee is expected to abide by Company policies and to cooperate fully in any investigation that the Company may undertake.” The NLRB said this rule is legal because “employees would reasonably interpret it to apply to employer investigations of workplace misconduct rather than investigations of unfair labor practices or preparations for arbitration.”
  • Legal: “‘Being insubordinate, threatening, intimidating, disrespectful or assaulting a manager/supervisor, coworker, customer or vendor will result in’ discipline.” The NLRB said: “Although a ban on being  disrespectful’ to management, by itself, would ordinarily be found to unlawfully chill Section 7 criticism of the employer, the term here is contained in a larger provision that is clearly focused on serious misconduct, like insubordination, threats, and assault. Viewed in that context, we concluded that employees would not reasonably believe this rule to ban protected criticism.”

Rules regarding conduct between employees

  • Illegal: “‘[D]on’t pick fights’ online.”
  • Illegal: “Do not make ‘insulting, embarrassing, hurtful or abusive comments about other company employees online,’ and ‘avoid the use of offensive, derogatory, or prejudicial comments.’”
  • Illegal: “[S]how proper consideration for others’ privacy and for topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory, such as politics and religion.”
  • Illegal: “Do not send ‘unwanted, offensive, or inappropriate’ e-mails.”

The NLRB said the rules above were unlawfully overbroad because employees would reasonably construe them to restrict protected discussions with their co-workers.

  • Legal: “[No] ‘Making inappropriate gestures, including visual staring.’”
  • Legal: “Any logos or graphics worn by employees ‘must not reflect any form of violent, discriminatory, abusive, offensive, demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional message.’”
  • Legal: “[No] ‘[T]hreatening, intimidating, coercing, or otherwise interfering with the job performance of fellow employees or visitors.’”
  • Legal: “No ‘harassment of employees, patients or facility visitors.’”
  • Legal: “No ‘use of racial slurs, derogatory comments, or insults.’”

The NLRB said the rules above were legal because: “when an employer’s professionalism rule simply requires employees to be respectful to customers or competitors, or directs employees not to engage in unprofessional conduct, and does not mention the company or its management, employees would not reasonably believe that such a rule prohibits Section 7-protected criticism of the company.



For more HR News, please visit: 30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

Source: News from HR Morning

Are you advertising for ‘digital natives’? You might want to rethink that

There seems to be a new code word for coveted young job candidates: “Digital natives.” And if you use it, you could be opening yourself up to an age discrimination charge.  

Vivian Giang, writing on Fortune.com, says that many employers, especially in the media, advertising and tech industries, have gotten away from the phrase “new grad” in favor of the “digital natives” moniker.

She cites a few examples from a Fortune survey:

Virginia Beach, VA-based software solutions firm, StratusLIVE, is currently seeking a lead generation specialist to join its team and according to its ad, the “ideal candidate must be a digital native” who adapts quickly to new technologies.

Zipcar, the car-sharing service, posted an ad for a director of creative and brand marketing and says this person “will be a proven creative leader and digital native.” Being a digital native also is on its list of “minimum” job requirements.

The Gannett-owned CBS TV affiliate in Washington D.C. notes in its ad that it is looking to hire digital natives.

In a posting for a project manager, advertising agency Wunderman, which is part of marketing giant Young & Rubicam Brands, listed as the top requirement being “a digital native” experienced in “existing and emerging digital platforms.”

Obviously, younger applicants are far likelier to be considered “natives” to the digital world than their older counterparts.

So is this new term simply a smoke screen designed to hide employers’ intent to exclude older workers (which we suppose might have to be called “digital immigrants”)?

Three employment attorneys contacted by Fortune said it might very well be.

No formal complaints … so far

Giang points out that age discrimination complaints have spiraled upward, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with 15,785 claims filed in 1997 compared to 20,588 filed in 2014. Out of the 121 charges filed last year by the EEOC for alleged discriminatory advertising, she said, 111 claimed the job postings discriminated against older applicants.

Joseph Olivares, a spokesperson for the EEOC, told Giang the agency has not taken a position on whether using the term “digital native” in an ad is discriminatory. But that’s only because somebody needs to file a complaint before the EEOC can investigate. So far, none have been filed.

So what’s to be learned here? Although there aren’t any claims on the books yet, you can bet there soon will be. And if you’re using the term in your job advertising, you’d better have a pretty strong argument that older workers — that is, workers over 40 — could be considered natives in a digital universe.

Good luck with that.

 



For more HR News, please visit: Are you advertising for ‘digital natives’? You might want to rethink that

Source: News from HR Morning

New notice requirement tucked inside EEOC’s proposed regs

Just what you needed, right? Yet another rule requiring you to notify employees of your policies and procedures. 

Well, it looks like you’re going to get one, courtesy of the EEOC’s long-awaited proposed regulations outlining how the ADA applies to employee wellness programs.

Employers have been clamoring — in light of recent lawsuits by the EEOC against wellness programs — for clarity on what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to these programs.

Last month, the EEOC issued that clarity in the form of proposed regulations (here are eight things you need to know about the regs), and in them the agency included a new notice requirement for wellness programs.

The specifics

The notice requirement says that when a wellness program is part of a group health plan (as is often the case), the employer sponsoring the program must provide a detailed notice to participants explaining:

  • what medical info will be collected from participants
  • who’ll receive the medical info
  • how the medical info will be used
  • the restrictions on its disclosure, and
  • the methods that will be used to protect the confidentiality of the info.

This notice requirement is separate from other notice requirements under HIPAA, and the EEOC said it believes it’ll take employers four hours to develop the notice.

The proposed regs also mandate that employers only receive medical info in aggregate from that does not disclose, and is not “reasonably likely” to disclose, the identity of specific individuals.

Complying with existing HIPAA privacy rules will, generally, ensure compliance with the confidentiality requirements of the proposed regs, the EEOC said.

When will it take effect?

The EEOC has asked for public comments on the notice requirement and proposed regs. It’ll be accepting comments until June 19.

The EEOC will then evaluate all of the comments it receives and make revisions to the regs if deemed necessary. The agency will then vote on final regs. After they’re approved, they’ll be sent to the Office of Management and Budget and will be coordinated with other federal agencies before being published in the Federal Register.

So it’ll likely be several months before the final regs are enacted and the new notice requirement kicks in.

Info: For info on how to submit comments, click here.



For more HR News, please visit: New notice requirement tucked inside EEOC’s proposed regs

Source: News from HR Morning

You won’t believe these cases of employee fraud

For some rogue staffers, lifting office supplies or seeking reimbursement on a few minor “non-business related” charges is mere child’s play.  

Here are seven of the most over-the-top examples that we could find of in-house theft and employee fraud:

  • $1.2 million in false expenses. David Smith, a former Quest Diagnostics manager, managed to get reimbursed for over $1.2 million in false expenses through a complex web of deception. He set up fake companies, created fake invoices and turned in fake expense reports for payments he’d supposedly made to companies on Quest’s behalf.
    The FBI eventually caught on, and Smith was sentenced to five years in prison. His undoing? In addition to poorly named fake companies like Environmental Tech and Rep Med Services, Smith’s mailing addresses didn’t match up. Example: Environmental Tech’s address was an entrance ramp to a Tampa freeway.
  • Security expert finds — and exploits — $1 million hole in company’s internal controls. It’s not an unheard of scenario: A company hires a former “professional” thief as a theft-prevention specialist because of real-life expertise in the security field. In this case, a former embezzler, Barry Webne, was hired at Block Communications, Inc., as a “theft-prevention specialist.” Rather than protection, Webne ended up writing himself checks on company stock — signed with a signature stamp of a co-worker — cashing the checks, then destroying the canceled checks that were returned to the company. He made false entries in the company’s books to cover his actions. Before he was caught, Webne robbed Block of a staggering $1,138,334!
  • A suspiciously long case of jury duty. Joseph Winstead, a Washington, D.C., postal worker, managed to bilk the USPS out of close to $40,000 in unearned wages over a total of 144 days by claiming he was serving jury duty on an extended federal trial. (The USPS worker fabricated court paperwork to support his reimbursement because he was excused before the deliberations began.)
    He would’ve gotten away with it if he didn’t try his luck again — three years later. After a supervisor caught on, Winstead plead guilty to fraud — in the same federal courthouse where he claimed to have spent over 100 days fulfilling his civic duties.
  • Lots of company property goes missing. The proper safeguards are essential to ensure staffers don’t make off with valuable company property such as PCs, laptops, fax machines and … phone books? Instead of delivering phone books, a former Directory Plus employee squirreled away over 100,000 directories over the course of four years. What did she do with all those numbers? She hid her stash in three storage units — taken out in her name. Estimated losses from the missing phone books: Over $500k!
  • Who counts coins anyway? A former Calgary Transit employee, David Hamilton, pilfered almost $375,000 from his company the old-fashioned way. Over the course of seven years, the former fare counter took coins home with him by hiding them in his bag. That’s an average of $200 per day in quarters, dimes and nickels.
  • IKEA worker nets $400K in refunds. After mastering the furniture company’s phone and mail-order system, Suraj Samaroo started issuing himself refunds for purchases made by customers. Samaroo would cover up his rampant refunding by altering inventory records. In less than a year, he stole almost $400,000.
  • Bookkeeper swipes $350K from bookstore. At an independent bookstore in NC, Bookkeeper Anna Susan Kosak was nabbed for embezzling $348,975. Because Ms. Kosak was the only person to handle the company books, she would write — and cash — checks written out to herself without any oversight.

Of course, employee fraud is no laughing matter. And during times of economic uncertainty, employee theft tends to increase — especially for smaller businesses. Here are four safeguards to keep your company safe.



For more HR News, please visit: You won’t believe these cases of employee fraud

Source: News from HR Morning

Supreme Court ruling a ‘huge step forward': But for EEOC or employers?

Supreme Court ruling a ‘huge step forward': But for EEOC or employers?

Supreme Court

What happens if the EEOC doesn’t go all-out in an attempt to resolve discrimination complaints with employers before filing a lawsuit? That was the question before the Supreme Court. 

The case was brought to the court by Mach Mining LLC, an employer claiming the EEOC didn’t do what it was required to do under federal law to resolve discrimination claims prior to filing a lawsuit.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the EEOC — prior to filing a lawsuit — to attempt to conciliate a dispute with an employer after the agency finds reasonable cause to believe the employer discriminated against a worker.

Did it conciliate ‘in good faith’?

This all started when a women, who’d applied to be a coal miner with Mach Mining filed a complaint with the EEOC that the company denied her employment because she was a woman.

The EEOC then investigated and determined there was reasonable cause to believe Mach Mining was guilty of discrimination. The EEOC then invited the claimant and Mach Mining to engage in informal methods of dispute resolution.

According to the case before the High Court, both parties were then told the EEOC would contact them to begin the conciliation process. About a year later, the EEOC informed Mach Mining via a letter that the conciliation process had failed. Shortly after, it filed suit against Mach Mining.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC claimed it fulfilled its obligation to attempt conciliation. But Mach Mining countered, saying the EEOC failed to conciliate “in good faith.”

The EEOC then said the court had no authority to review its conciliation efforts. And again, Mach Mining took the opposite stance, claiming the court had the authority to review the reasonableness of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts.

A district court ruled in favor of Mach Mining. The Seventh Circuit court then reversed that decision.

So before the High Court the issue went.

What was hanging in the balance?

A win for Mach Mining would’ve surely limited the EEOC’s ability to expedite the conciliation process and jump into a lawsuit, thus giving employers a better shot at settling charges out of court.

So on which side did the Supreme Court fall?

In a 9-0 consensus, the High Court took Mach Mining’s side and ruled courts do have the authority to review whether the EEOC has fulfilled its conciliation obligations.

But employers shouldn’t pop the champagne just yet; this doesn’t appear to be the win they were hoping for.

The problem: While the High Court said it’s well within other courts’ authority to review the EEOC’s conciliation process, it put pretty strict limits on how deep courts can actually dig into the process.

In fact, the limits are so strict the EEOC is actually treating the ruling as a victory.

In a recent news release on the ruling, the EEOC called it, “a step forward for victims of discrimination.”

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said in the release:

“This unanimous decision is great news for victims of discrimination on whose behalf we are seeking relief — and for the public, which ultimately benefits from our work.  As the court noted, Title VII is about substantive outcomes.  We are pleased the court rejected the intrusive review proposed by the company and its supporters.  The court recognized that the scope of review is narrow and a sworn affidavit is generally sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.  If the employer has concrete evidence that such efforts were not made and the court finds in favor of the employer, the remedy is further conciliation.”

What can courts do?

Five critical aspects of the Supreme Court’s ruling:

  • Title VII’s conciliation mandate only requires the EEOC to notify an employer of the claims against it and give the employer an opportunity to discuss the matter. The notice must describe what the employer has done and identify the employees (or class of employees) that have been effected. The EEOC must try to engage the employer in a discussion to provide the employer with a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.
  • Title VII does not, require a good-faith negotiation between the EEOC and the employer.
  • Courts can review whether the EEOC has fulfilled this conciliation obligation.
  • All the EEOC needs to produce before a court to prove the agency has fulfilled its conciliation obligation is a sworn affidavit stating it gave the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance.
  • If an employer is able to produce “concrete evidence” the EEOC did not provide it with information about the charges against it or a chance to resolve them voluntarily, a court can only stay the proceeding and require the EEOC to meet its conciliation obligation.

Bottom line: While this case could be considered a win for Mach Mining (albeit a slim one), it could also be an affirmation of just how much power the EEOC has when it comes to perusing discrimination claims against employers. The EEOC is certainly taking it as the latter.

Cite: Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC



For more HR News, please visit: Supreme Court ruling a ‘huge step forward’: But for EEOC or employers?

Source: News from HR Morning

2015 Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) Pricing Guide – Don’t Let Price Confusion Slow You Down

Simplify your software evaluation process with this Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) software pricing guide. This guide is based on extensive market research and will help you to better understand five key aspects of accurate software pricing.

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: 2015 Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) Pricing Guide – Don’t Let Price Confusion Slow You Down

Source: News from HR Morning

Find the Best Payroll Software – One Minute Could Save You Days of Frustration

If your company is tracking employee information and processing payments manually, payroll solutions could save you time, money and a lot of headaches by mitigating compliance risks. There are many payroll solutions available to streamline the task, but determining which solution is best for you can be overwhelming. Software Advice’s team of independent experts have reviewed more than 30 payroll software systems and are ready to provide you with reviews and price quotes from the vendors that best meet your needs.

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: Find the Best Payroll Software – One Minute Could Save You Days of Frustration

Source: News from HR Morning

Beware: 4 ADA triggers your managers may be missing

Most HR pros are well aware of the many triggers that could signal an employee’s need for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. But managers and supervisors are another story altogether.

Many firms are learning the hard way that not training managers and supervisors properly on how to recognize situations when the ADA could be in play has major and costly consequences.

At at the recent Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Diego, Buck Consultants’ Ophelia W. Galindo outlined some of the major trigger events that suggest that the ADA — and the interactive process — might come into play.

4 events to watch for

Put managers on alert: When these situations crop up, they should talk to HR and see if the company should start engaging in the interactive process and/or considering additional leave as a reasonable accommodation:

1. An employee needs to take time off, but isn’t eligible for FMLA or company leave. Remember, there isn’t an eligibility period for ADA accommodations. So if an employee has a disability, you may have to grant leave as an ADA accommodation.

2. If an employee exhausts FMLA and/or company medical leave. We’ve seen plenty of cases of employers that wound up in legal trouble for automatic termination policies where employees were fired after exhausting a predetermined amount of leave. After all, one of the major impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) was that fact that automatic termination policies became illegal.

3. If an employee — even one who hasn’t been on leave — presents a “doctor’s note” about his or her needs. Any time an employee offers written documentation about a condition from a health provider, employers should be prepared to explore the ADA accommodation process. After all, almost everything could be a disability under the ADAAA.

4. If an employee explains that his or her absences and/or performance issues were related to an illness. Some examples:

  • I’m sorry I’m making so many mistakes, but I just can’t concentrate since my doctor put me on a new medication.
  • My doctor told me it would be hard to lift things for a few days after my physical therapy visits.
  • I have to go to the bathroom every hour or so because of my illness.

But what’s ‘reasonable’ anyway?

Because reasonable accommodations can vary greatly from case to case, the interactive process is a tremendous challenge for HR pros. During her presentation, Galindo also touched on the following things employers should always keep in mind regarding reasonable accommodations:

  • Employees must be able to do the essential functions of their jobs with the accommodation.
  • Employers aren’t required to create new jobs for disabled employees as an accommodation.
  • Essential job functions tend to change, so employers should review job descriptions frequently.
  • Open ended, indefinite leave requests are not reasonable. Remember, a company is entitled to a realistic expectation that an employee will progress toward, and ultimately, return to work to perform his or her job.
  • Economic or undue hardship is a very hard argument for large companies to prove. Galindo urged firms to remember that undue hardship isn’t determined by work group, location or department, it’s determined on a companywide level. That means employers must prove that the disabled employee’s reasonable accommodation would present an undue hardship to the entire business.

Info: This story previously appeared on our sister website HR Benefits Alert.



For more HR News, please visit: Beware: 4 ADA triggers your managers may be missing

Source: News from HR Morning

Are nine out of 10 of your employees satisfied with their jobs?

U.S. workers are feeling good about their jobs again.  

So says the latest research from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in its latest Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement Survey.

SHRM recorded the largest increase in the number of employees satisfied with their jobs since the survey was first conducted in 2002. The survey showed that 86% of U.S. employees reported overall satisfaction with their job in 2014, an improvement of five points over the year before.

At 86%, the percentage of employees happy in their work matches the highest level of satisfaction during the last 10 years, researchers said. Since 2004, job satisfaction peaked at 86% in 2009 and then declined in the aftermath of the recession.

According to the poll, the top contributor to job satisfaction was “respectful treatment of all employees at all levels,” rated as very important by 72% of employees. “Trust between employees and senior management” came in second at 64%.

Benefits were rated as the third most important contributor to job satisfaction, with 63% of employees indicating they were very important. With the exception of 2012, benefits have been among the top five contributors to job satisfaction since the survey began in 2002.

Among the other top contributors to job satisfaction were job security (noted as very important by 59% of respondents), relationship with immediate supervisor (58%), opportunities to uses skills and abilities (58%) and immediate supervisor’s respect for ideas (56%).

The annual survey also measured employee engagement — employees’ connection and commitment to their work and organization. It found that 79% of employees were satisfied with their relationships with co-workers, and 76% were satisfied with the contribution their work made to the employer’s business goals.

Other survey results:

  • 92% of employees said they were confident that they could meet their work goals.
  • 88% said they were determined to accomplish their work goals.
  • 76% said they had a clear understanding of their organization’s vision and mission.
  • 74% said they were highly motivated by work goals, which is an increase of 10 points from the year before.

The survey sample included 600 randomly selected individuals who were employed in full- or part-time roles.



For more HR News, please visit: Are nine out of 10 of your employees satisfied with their jobs?

Source: News from HR Morning