Two cents from an employment lawyer.
My colleague David Phippen wrote an excellent bulletin about this week's McLaren Macomb decision from the National Labor Relations Board, in which the Board ruled that offering separation agreements with non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions constitutes unlawful interfere with employees' Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
"But we're non-union, so we're cool."
No, you're not. Well, you may be non-union, but you're not cool. Well, you may be cool, but you can't ignore this decision.
Section 7 doesn't apply only to employees who are represented by unions. With only limited exceptions, all employees have Section 7 rights. Under Section 7, employees have
the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," as well as the right "to refrain from any or all such activities."
And Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA says it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to"to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7."
Again, what the Board did this week was say that it is unlawful "interference" with an employee's Section 7 rights to offer a severance package in exchange for an agreement that includes non-disparagement and confidentiality terms.
Yes, the mere offer is a violation. Not even forcing the employee to accept.
It's an awful decision, but employers have to live with it for now. I see at least two small rays of sunshine.
First, I'm not sure that the Board took issue with all confidentiality requirements in separation agreements. The Board invalidated provisions that prohibit an employee from discussing the agreement with anyone other than attorneys, financial advisors, and spouses -- a very standard term. I'll refer to this as a "confidentiality-of-agreement" term.
What I did not see in the NLRB decision was an indication that employers couldn't continue to ask for confidentiality of their trade secrets and proprietary business information. Or that a health care employer couldn't continue to ask for confidentiality of patient information. So, assuming I read that right, that's a (tiny) bit of good news.
More significantly, not every employee is an "employee" within the meaning of the NLRA. For example, it's still perfectly legal to offer your Chief Financial Officer a severance package in exchange for his agreement to keep his mouth shut. Ditto for your middle managers, and even your front-line supervisors (usually). Also, your independent contractors, assuming they really are independent contractors.
That's because the NLRA excludes certain classes of workers from its definition of "employee." This is from the NLRB website:
Excluded from coverage under the [NLRA] are public-sector employees (employees of state, federal and local governments and their sub-divisions), agricultural and domestic workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act, and supervisors (although supervisors that have been discriminated against for refusing to violate the NLRA may be covered)."
I'd like to focus on the NLRA definition of "supervisor," because I think that is the most significant exception that will apply to most private sector employers.
Some employees are called "supervisors," but they aren't really supervisors in the legal sense. Section 2(11) has the characteristics of a true "supervisor" for NLRA purposes (aka "person you can still require to agree to no-disparagement and confidentiality-of-agreement in exchange for a separation package unless prohibited by some other law"):
- The authority to hire, transfer, and suspend employees.
- The authority to lay off, recall, and promote employees.
- The authority to discharge, assign, reward, or discipline employees.
- The authority "responsibly to direct" employees.
- The authority to "adjust [employees'] grievances."
- Or the authority "effectively to recommend" the above.
- And the authority cannot be of a "routine or clerical nature" but must require the exercise of independent judgment.
With employees at a certain level and above -- like our middle managers, and even most front-line supervisors -- this will be an easy call. With these people, you can continue to use agreements that have non-disparagement and confidentiality-of-agreement provisions.
Supervisor status is fuzzier with employees like lead persons, forepersons, team leaders, and the like, depending on their specific duties and authority. In most cases, they will be considered "NLRA employees." As will the rest of your non-management workforce.
With your "NLRA employees," here are your options in the event of a termination or reduction in force. Please note that the first one is very likely to get you in trouble with the Board:
- Offer your normal separation package with an agreement that has non-disparagement and confidentiality-of-agreement provisions, but add a "Section 7 disclaimer." For example, "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, nothing in this Agreement is intended to prohibit Employee from engaging in any activity protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act." (Again, this is a high-risk option. The NLRB is almost sure to say that a mere disclaimer isn't enough to protect employee rights.)
- Offer your normal separation package with an agreement that does not contain non-disparagement or confidentiality-of-agreement provisions but that does contain other provisions important to you -- such as a release of claims. And maybe throw in a Section 7 disclaimer for good measure. (This is much better than the first option, but it still has some degree of risk because who knows which agreement terms will be invalidated by this NLRB in the future? Does asking for an agreement not to sue "interfere" with an employee's Section 7 rights?)
- Offer a modest amount of severance pay without requiring an agreement at all. I have had some clients do this with hourly employees who are affected by a RIF. (No risk with the NLRB, but you're paying employees without getting any protection from litigation in return.)
- Don't require an agreement, and don't pay any severance. (This leaves you unprotected from litigation, but the NLRB won't care, and at least you didn't have to pay to be unprotected. Too bad for the employees losing their jobs, though. Thanks, NLRB!)
As David points out in his bulletin, it's very possible that the employer in the McLaren Macomb case will ask a court to review the NLRB decision, and it's possible that the court will refuse to enforce it. But the process is slow, and a pro-employer outcome is far from assured. So, for now, employers should review, and then probably amend, the standard separation agreements that they use with employees who are covered by the NLRA.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010