In a decision reached in April of 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handed down a ruling that certain rules contained within the “Big Book,” the employee handbook for Quicken Loans (QL) and its family of companies, violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In MacEachern v. Quicken Loans, Inc., In House Realty, LLC, Quizzle, LLC, One Reverse Mortgage, LLC, Fathead, LLC, Rock Connections, LLC, and Title Source, Inc., NLRB Case No. 07−CA−145794 (2016), an administrative law judge found that multiple rules in the Big Book were unlawfully overbroad and substantially undermined QL employees’ right to organize or unionize as protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.
This case goes on to discuss and analyze several sections of the Big Book and the language used in specific rules found to be in violation of the NLRA. Among the portions of the Big Book found to be in violations of the NLRA are:
- Those which prohibit dissemination of the information contained within the Big Book as the information directly and indirectly relates to the conditions and terms of a person’s employment. Employees’ right to discuss employment conditions with other employees and third parties are expressly protected by the NLRA.
- Those which threaten termination of employment for failing to keep a complaint regarding employment conditions confidential as this could be construed as retaliation for whistleblowing. The ruling states that issues of harassment or discrimination can often be complicated and the evaluation as to falsity of statements or good faith in making them is not easy.
- Those restricting what employees post on their personal social media pages as summarized in the statement “If it doesn’t belong on the front page of The New York Times, don’t put it online.” These rules can be construed to restrict an employee’s ability to post things that the company views as negative to its reputation such as an employee’s complaints about hours, wages or working conditions. These public expressions by an employee are protected by the NLRA.
- Those which require employees to represent themselves in a “professional manner in both dress and conduct” when in public or online. This could be construed as prohibiting picketing, handbilling, or other protected activity as QL could consider these as “unprofessional.”
- Those prohibiting sharing of salary information. Employees have the right to share their salary information. Such a right is protected by the NLRA.
- Those prohibiting displaying of personal items which might “deemed to be, harmful or offensive to a reasonable person and his or her system of beliefs.” The judge comments in his opinion that this could broadly be interpreted to prohibit displaying pro-union items as this might be “deemed to be offensive” to someone having an anti-union sentiment.
- Those which prohibit dissemination solicitation literature on company premises as this prohibits the distribution of labor union materials. It is established as unlawful to institute a blanket ban on solicitation during nonworking hours.
- Those prohibiting the use of email in a way which is defamatory to the company as this restricts an employee’s ability to communicate workplace concerns or complaints about working conditions to other employees or third parties. The ruling states that this encroaches on the employees’ right to criticize employment policies, including the personnel involved, which is “at the core of Section 7 ‘speech.’”
As a remedy for these violations, the NLRB has ordered that QL and its family of companies cease and desist from the use of overly broad employee rules as are contained in the Big Book and post notice of the changes in a conspicuous place for 60 consecutive days. The notice drafted by the NLRB which must be posted states that:
- QL violated Federal labor law.
- Federal law gives employees the right to unionize, bargain collectively, act together with other employees for benefit and protection, or choose not to engage in the protected activity.
- The specifically overbroad rules found to be in violation the NLRA will not be maintained.
- QL guarantees not to interfere with or restrain employees exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the NLRA.
This case serves as a strong warning to companies to exercise caution when drafting an employee handbook. Maintaining rules which violate employee rights to unionize are in direct violation of the NLRA and must be avoided. This may be a very complicated issue and any concerns over the legality of the provisions of an employee handbook should be discussed with an attorney who is well-versed in labor law.
This article was written by Tyler Kemper, law clerk.
