You Can Take this Handbook and Shove It!


A recent Nation Labor Relation Board decision leaves many asking who’s the boss in a California Hooter’s Restaurant. Hooter’s advertises its services as delightfully tacky; however, the NLRB has given the staff permission to be as saucy as their wings. If upheld by the Board, this decision could undermine an employer’s ability to have written policies against insubordination.

The Decision found Hooter’s insubordination policy was too broad, along with several other policies. It stated, “insubordination to a manager or lack of respect and cooperation with fellow employees or guests [might result in discipline up to, and including immediate termination].” Finding the policy was contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, the Decision nullified Hooter’s ability to enforce it. The NLRB found the broad, undefined terms could chill employees’ rights to concerted activity for the purposes of unionizing, mutual aid, or protection. 

Specifically, in the Hooter’s case, a (non-unionized) employee was terminated after she, along with others, complained the restaurant’s annual bikini contest was rigged and otherwise unfair. The employee complained that she was forced to participate, without pay, and that the company’s marketing manager (who organized, planned, and executed the competition) was allowed to compete. That marketing manager also selected the panel of judges, which included her best friend and boyfriend. After the marketing manager placed first in the competition, the employee complained and alleged cheating. Superficially, the employee was upset about a bikini contest, but legally, she was engaged in protected actions regarding wages and working conditions. 

As a practical matter, the Decision only binds Hooter’s, but the takeaway is to review your policies, particularly those which impinge upon an employee’s ability to speak/comment/react regarding their employment. Watch for undefined or ambiguous terms. If such ambiguities are present, then define the terms or limit the policy’s reach to company goals and objectives. Stay away from limiting speech which directly relates to compensation or conditions of employment. 

Employers must have the ability to regulate employees and control insubordination. However, if the NLRB affirms this ruling or continues ruling in this way, then limiting definitions will be critical. The employee may have lost the battle of the bikini contest, but she certainly won the war before the NLRB.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Davis Brown Law Firm | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.