Labor Letter, January 2013: Has The NLRB Outlawed Courtesy?

by Fisher Phillips

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has attracted attention in recent years for its scrutiny of employer rules and policies regulating conduct of employees – including employees who are not represented by unions or attempting to organize a union.  While much of this attention has been focused on decisions of the Board and guidance issued by its Acting General Counsel regarding social networking policies, the Board has addressed other employee conduct rules as well. 

Case law on this topic pre-dates the current Board, and it is grounded in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which protects the right of employees to form or join unions or otherwise engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection.   But some employers are left puzzled by recent Board decisions invalidating employee-conduct policies that seem to have nothing to do with preventing employees from forming or joining unions.  Policies requiring employees to be courteous to one another and to customers and vendors are the latest to be struck down by the Board.

In two cases decided in September of this year the NLRB addressed the lawfulness of employer rules requiring courtesy and decorum on the part of employees, and it came to opposite conclusions.  While these cases might be read to suggest that an employer risks violating federal law by requiring its employees to behave civilly at work, a closer reading indicates that employers still may lawfully promulgate basic employee-conduct standards, provided those standards are narrowly and carefully written.


The first case was Costco Wholesale Corporation.  There the Board found that an employee handbook rule requiring employees to use “appropriate business decorum” in communicating with others was lawful under the NLRA.  But the Board went on to hold that the employer’s rule prohibiting the posting of messages that “damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation” was unlawful.

In Costco the Board reiterated its approach taken in earlier cases to determine whether a workplace rule or policy violates the Act i.e., where the rule would “reasonably tend to chill employees” in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.  If the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 rights, said the Board, it is obviously unlawful. 

If it does not, a violation depends on a showing of one of the following: 1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; 2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or 3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.  Most of the Board’s decisions in this area fall under  the first test, with the Board attempting to determine whether employees “reasonably would construe” a particular rule or policy as interfering with their Section 7 rights.  The Board never inquires of actual employees as to how they construe these policies, however.  Instead the Board imagines how “reasonable” employees would view the policy.  

As to the rule requiring appropriate decorum in communications, the Board agreed that it was intended to promote “a civil and decent workplace” and not to restrict Section 7 activity.  But it disagreed  regarding the rule against damaging or defamatory communications.  It found that employees reasonably would interpret that rule as prohibiting certain protected communications, such as communications critical of the employer or its terms and conditions of employment.  Costco, then, appears to approve of rules that require courtesy and decorum in workplace communications and that prohibit harassment, verbal abuse, and profanity.  It disapproves of broad rules against making damaging or defamatory statements about the company or another person, at least where nothing in the rule clarifies that protected communications (such as those concerning wages or working conditions) are not covered.

Knaus Motors

Three weeks later, however, the Board issued its decision in Karl Knaus Motors, Inc. concerning an employee handbook rule that stated:

Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee.  Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees.  No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.

Applying the same test it applied in Costco, the Board found this courtesy rule unlawful.  It determined that employees would construe the rule’s broad prohibition against “disrespectful” conduct and “language which injures the image or reputation of the dealership” to cover Section 7 activity such as employees’ statements – to coworkers, supervisors or third parties who deal with the employer – that object to their working conditions and seek the support of others in improving them. 

The Board noted, as it did in Costco, that nothing in the rule suggested that communications protected by Section 7 were exempt.  According to the Board, if the rule only encouraged “courteous, polite and friendly” behavior it might pass muster, but the rule’s prohibition against “disrespectful” conduct that damages the employer’s reputation would lead reasonable employees to believe that expressions of disagreement with their employer’s employment practices would constitute grounds for discipline.

Knaus Motors might appear to hold that employers may not lawfully require their employees to be courteous and professional in dealing with co-workers, supervisors, customers and clients.  While future Board decisions might go so far, given the liberal bent of the current Board and the Board’s continued focus on this area, Knaus Motors need not be read that way.  

The problem with the policies struck down in Costco and Knaus Motors is that they were overbroad.  They combined valid rules requiring courtesy and decorum with invalid rules against disrespectful and defamatory behavior. Any prohibition against employees disparaging or “defaming” their employer or their supervisors will not likely survive scrutiny of the current Board, which will almost certainly find such rules to interfere with employees’ right under Section 7 to complain about management and working conditions.

Employee-Conduct Policies Are Lawful If They Are Focused And Narrow 

The lesson to be taken from these cases is not that you should abandon Workplace-conduct standards, but rather that you should review those standards to ensure that they are not overbroad or ambiguous.  Policies must be specific.  A policy against harassing language or discriminatory conduct based on race, sex, national origin, or other protected categories will remain lawful so long as it does not contain overbroad language that strays from the purpose of the policy. For example, a policy that prohibits verbal or physical harassment based on enumerated protected categories will be safe.  A policy that prohibits “all forms of harassing, annoying or disrespectful language and conduct” is too broad and will be vulnerable to attack.  

Likewise, avoid broad policies against disrespectful conduct.  The Board will likely strike down a policy requiring that employees “respect” their supervisors and one another on the ground that such a policy is ambiguous and could be read to restrict employees from challenging their employer over wages or working conditions, or challenging one another over the merits of unionism. By contrast, a policy against insubordination would likely survive the Board’s scrutiny if it defined insubordination as the failure or refusal to follow directions or an order from a supervisor.  Employees have the right under Section 7 to voice their disagreement with their employer’s policies but they do not have the right to refuse to follow management’s direction as it relates to their work.      

Rules against bullying, threats, and intimidation should remain valid, The Board in Knaus Motors highlighted the distinction between invalid employer restrictions on the content of speech and valid restrictions on the manner of speaking.  While employees have the right to voice their opposition to employer policies, they do not have the right to do so in a menacing manner.

These cases also suggest that policies regulating employee communication and behavior might have been deemed lawful had they contained a proviso stating that speech or conduct protected by Section 7 is not prohibited by those policies.  But think carefully before including such a disclaimer.  The Board’s Acting General Counsel issued  guidance earlier this year that such disclaimers were not sufficient to save policies regulating social networking that were deemed to infringe on employees’ Section 7 rights. So whether such a disclaimer would actually be found by the Board to validate an otherwise invalid policy is far from clear.

Moreover, telling employees that the rules of conduct in an employee handbook do not apply when employees are attempting to form or join unions or are otherwise engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection is likely to lead to confusion, if not some other undesired results. The better approach is simply to ensure that rules of conduct are stated narrowly and specifically.

Our Advice

Review your employee-conduct policies to determine if they would pass muster in the event of a challenge before the NLRB.  Vague or overbroad policies should be rewritten so as to be more narrow and focused on the types of employee conduct that are not protected.  If you’d like help doing that, give us a call.

For more information contact the author at or (949) 851-2424.

This article also appeared on October 26, 2012 on Employment Law360.

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.

© Fisher Phillips | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Fisher Phillips

Fisher Phillips on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.