This article was republished in the Employee Benefit Plan Review.
Are union supporters and others complaining about wages, hours, or working conditions free to use racial and sexist slurs, or profanity, harassing, offensive and disruptive words and behaviors in pursuit of their goals? In Lion Elastomers LLC II, the National Labor Relations Board (โNLRBโ or โBoardโ) resurrected its former legal standard to answer this question, โyes!โ
Employees have the right to engage in โprotected concerted activityโ to support unions or otherwise present complaints to their employer. But are workers engaged in โprotected concerted activityโ free to ignore common rules of mutual respect and courtesy that apply to all other workplace interactions? Before Lion Elastomers II, the answer was โno.โ Now, the answer is โyes.โ The decision will be applied retroactively.
Prior Rule: Employers May Not Discriminate Against โProtected Concerted Activityโ
The Lion Elastomers II decision overruled the NLRBโs 2020 decision in General Motors LLC. General Motors condensed the NLRBโs various standards for determining whether employee misconduct was inappropriate in different circumstances: picket lines; outbursts with management; and social media rants โ that may encompass Section 7 rights. General Motors adopted the time-honored Wright Line standard, which makes employer discipline legal if the employer can prove it would have issued the discipline without the protected concerted activity. In other words, the focus is on the employerโs motivation for taking the discipline. Under General Motors, employee misconduct is not given special protection simply because it arguably was intertwined with protected concerted activity.
New Rule: Employers Cannot Discipline Unless Misconduct During โProtected Concerted Activityโ Is โSo Egregiousโ as to Lose Legal Protectionย
In Lion Elastomers II, the NLRB returned to Atlantic Steelโs four-factor test to determine whether an employeeโs misconduct toward management loses the protection under the National Labor Relations Act (the โActโ). Those factors include: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) if the nature of the employeeโs outburst was, in any way, provoked by the employerโs unfair labor practice; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employerโs unfair labor practices.[1] The Boardโs past application of this legal test demonstrates that even outrageous and abusive words and behaviors are protected under it.
The NLRBโs interpretation of the Atlantic Steel test is fueled by its distorted view of the workplace. The NLRB believes โmisconduct in the course of Section 7 activity is treated differently than misconduct in the ordinary workplace setting with no Section 7 activity.โ (Slip Op. at 4.) Why? The NLRB envisions employees (especially union members) โto be the equal of management.โ (Slip Op. at 10). Indeed, employee-union representatives โmust be treated on a plane of equalityโ with management โand that, in spite of possible offense to the employer, they be permitted not only to put forth and defend demands, but also to vigorously and robustly debate and challenge the statements of management representatives without fear of discipline or retaliation.โ (Slip Op. at 10).
The NLRBโs Track Record Under the Atlantic Steel Testย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย
The NLRB also confirmed that, like Title VII, the Act is not a general civility code. โIt imposes no obligation on employees to be โcivilโ in exercising their statutory rights.โ The NLRB noted the Act recognizes an employerโs legitimate interest in maintaining order and respect in the workplace but emphasized that interest must be balanced against employees’ Section 7 rights. Moreover, โ[t]he Board โ not employers โ referees the exercise of protected activity under the Act.โ (Slip Op. at 11). While the Board dismissed employer concerns about not running afoul of Title VII (and other federal laws), beyond question, the NLRB has paid little more than lip service to that balancing exercise in the past.
As NLRB Board Member Marvin Kaplan forewarned in his dissent when discussing the Boardโs track record under Atlantic Steel:
โโฆI am concerned that todayโs decision will, once again, require employers to continue to employ individuals who have engaged in such abusive conduct any reasonable employer would have terminated them for that misconduct. If the past is any guide, the Board will now protect employees who engage in a full range of indefensible misconduct, such as profane ad hominem attacks and threats to supervisors in the workplace, posting social media attacks against a manager and his family, shouting racist epithets at other employees, or carrying signs sexually harassing a particular employee.โ (emphasis added). (footnotes omitted). (Slip Op. at 18.)
Member Kaplan was not engaging in hyperbole. He cited the following two Board decisions, which serve as chilling reminders of things to come.
- See Plaza Auto Center, Inc. 360 NLRB 972, 977-980 (2014) (finding the following conduct protected: calling the owner a โf*cking mother f*cking,โ a โf*cking crook,โ an โa**hole,โ and โstupidโ; telling him no one liked him and everyone talked about the owner behind his back; standing up while pushing a chair aside; and threatening that the owner would regret firing him โ if he did).
- See Pier Sixty, LLC, 362 NLRB 505, 506-508 (2015) (finding the following social medial post protected: the manager โis such a NASTY MOTHER F*CKER donโt know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*ck his mother and his entire f*cking family!!!! What a LOSER!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!โ) (emphasis in original).
If you are surprised such misconduct was deemed protected by the NLRB, you are in good company. Such misconduct is not acceptable under any circumstances โ whether or not cloaked in alleged โprotected concerted activity.โ While Congress intended a wide range of conduct to be protected by Section 7, it did not intend the Act to be used as a phantom shield for employees to engage in significant aberrant misconduct (e.g., slurs, profanity, threats) or to prevent employers from taking prompt, effective, and consistent action when necessary to protect their employees from abusive conduct and to preserve workplace civility. Indeed, Member Kaplan โfirmly believe[s] Section 7 activity can thrive without racist, sexist, sexually harassing, or profane ad hominem attacks.โ (Slip Op. at 24). Most, if not all, employers would agree.
Hobsonโs Choice for Employers Going Forward
Unfortunately, given the NLRBโs expansive and subjective view of what constitutes protected concerted activity, employers will (once again) find themselves facing the quintessential Hobsonโs choice: discipline the employee and risk an unfair labor practice before the NLRB or refrain from discipline and risk potential state and federal discrimination agency charges and EEO lawsuits. Accordingly, employers must carefully evaluate employee misconduct and discern whether it arguably is committed in the context of protected concerted activity โ before implementing discipline.
If you have any questions about this decision or other labor law issues, please contact the authors of this article or any attorney in Frost Brown Toddโs Labor and Employment practice group.
[1] The NLRB also returned to: (1) a โtotality-of-the-circumstancesโ test (Pier Sixty, LLC) for cases involving social media posts and coworker interactions; and (2) a separate standard (Clear Pines Mouldings) to address alleged misconduct on picket lines.