Human Resources and Workplaces

Subscribe to Human Resources and Workplaces via RSS

The National Labor Relations Board is taking an increasingly hard look at the language in employer handbooks, as shown by two recent cases from the NLRB’s Arizona Region.  Recently, Hyatt Hotels Corporation agreed to settle an unfair labor practice charge that claimed a provision in the company’s employee handbook acknowledgment form was too broad.  The provision stated that Hyatt’s at-will employment policy could not be changed except by a written agreement signed by the employee and particular executives.  Similarly, earlier this year an administrative law judge decided that a disclaimer in the handbook of an American Red Cross unit stating that the at-will employment relationship “cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way,” could be interpreted to interfere with employees’ rights to engage in group activity to try to change the policy.

So, why the sudden attention by the NLRB to employee handbook policies on employment “at-will”? 

HR professionals generally want to give wayward employees opportunities to do better. So, situations commonly arise where an employee who consistently violates work rules and demonstrates less than professional behavior is given multiple chances to improve. Inevitably, most of the time such an employee fails to fully improve and the time comes to let the employee go. And just as inevitably, when he is terminated the employee contends that he should not have been terminated and 1) seeks unemployment compensation, 2) files an EEOC charge, and/or 3) sues for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whatever else he can conjure up. Suddenly all of your good intentions are thrown back in your face, leaving you wishing you would have just fired the employee without giving him all those additional chances to try to improve.

In a recent case out of New Jersey, the employer learned a very tough lesson on the pitfalls of second chances.

Over a year ago, our colleagues at the Information Intersection blog warned that employers should think twice before using websites such as Spokeo.com, which are aggregators of personal information collected from online sources, including social media.  They warned that:

…the information available through some of these sites might be incomplete, inaccurate or dated…The reality is that most online information brokers, in their current versions, are not designed to be used for employment screening purposes.  They typically do not meet or even purport to meet the strict rules that apply to pre-employment screening databases.

Name:  Patrick O’Donnell
Title:  VP HR & Risk, CPO
Company:  Kauffman Tire, Inc.
1. How many years have you been working in HR?  20 years.  Wow, I never really calculated that before!
2. Favorite thing about working in HR?  Impact.  While there are many other favorites like variety and fast pace, impact is probably my runaway answer.  The many facets of business and personal impact from efforts in this role are vast and gratifying.
3. Best piece of advice you ever received about a career in HR?  Get out – choose a different career!  More than one person has told me that.  The flip side of number two is that in “real world” HR/Business roles you have many challenges from all directions and much of your effort can be misunderstood and unappreciated.  It can be a difficult tightrope walk that is not for everybody.

Over the last two years, the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have been a prominent and well-discussed topic of employment law. The changes are substantial and significant, as you surely have recognized. But, the changes have also likely left many of you (and supervisors and managers you work with) concerned and confused about how to interact with disabled employees without offending or upsetting them.

Until recently, Georgia was one of the most difficult states in which to enforce a non-compete or other restrictive covenant agreement against employees who left their jobs, set up their own business or went to work for a competitor.  In 2009, the Georgia Legislature decide to change this by enacting legislation intended to clarify the law on non-compete agreements as well as other restrictive covenants (such as non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions).

While the goal was clear, the legislation was not.  The law that was enacted (and the amendment to the Georgia Constitution that was needed to permit the new legislation) left confusion about when the new law would take effect. 

I have recently written about cases where discrimination and retaliation led to large verdicts and huge liability for employers.  These cases remind us that hostility at work, in the form of discrimination and harassment, is wrong and expensive.  An additional example from just this week shows what happens when harassment occurs and is allowed to continue, and ends up out of control.

This past Tuesday, a federal jury in New York awarded $25 million to a steel plant worker on his mind-boggling claims of racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation, as well as some tort claims for emotional distress.  That kind of verdict raises eyebrows for sure.  But what is even more startling is what the employee was subjected to by his co-workers and how his employer responded (or in most cases, failed to respond).

Using a cell phone while driving is dangerous – we all know that.  Texting while driving is (or will soon be) illegal in 39 states and the District of Columbia.  But are your company’s employees using their cell phones to call or text while driving?  Are they doing it in a company car, with a company phone?  Even if your employees are only handling company business on a personal phone in a personal vehicle, you may still be at risk for a distracted driving lawsuit should they be involved in an accident. 

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board  (“NLRB”) issued its latest guidance on employer social media policies.  Over the past few years, the NLRB has taken the position that “overbroad” social media policies unreasonably and unlawfully prohibit employees from engaging in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act  (“NLRA”).  Importantly, Section 7 applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces.  So, if you are a non-unionized employer, read on — this applies to you, too!

Sometimes employment lawsuits are so “funny” they almost literally make steam come out of your ears.  In one recent case, the “employee’s” claim for unpaid overtime was particularly infuriating because she never worked for her alleged employer.

The Tampa Bay Times ran an article yesterday about a business in Pinellas Park, Florida that was sued for alleged unpaid overtime by two former employees.  The business owner didn’t believe he owed anyone any overtime or that he had violated the FLSA, so he hired an attorney to fight the lawsuit.  He was upset about having to spend money to defend himself, but he was even more concerned because he had never heard of one of the two plaintiffs suing him, even though he knew all of his current and former employees.