John Gallagher, Detroit Free Press
Quicken Loans said Tuesday it's "Big Book" of employee regulations did not violate its workers' free-speech rights because the voluminous handbook was irrelevant to daily operations and was largely ignored by staffers.
"It was an afterthought at best after it was distributed," attorney Russell Linden told David Goldman, an administrative law judge hearing a case against Quicken brought by the National Labor Relations Board at NLRB regional offices in Detroit.
Joanna Cline, chief marketing officer for Quicken spinoff firm Fathead, echoed that thought in her testimony during the NLRB hearing, as did other Quicken employees. "I am not aware of the Big Book being used" for any personnel decisions, Cline testified. Saying she received a copy at her orientation when hired in 2011, Cline said she never read the document. "I put it in a drawer" and later discarded it, she said.
The trial before Judge Goldman stems from charges brought earlier this year by the Detroit regional office of the NLRB, the federal agency that safeguards the rights of workers to join labor unions. The NLRB charges that Quicken's employee handbook, known as the Big Book, bars employees from discussing issues such as salaries and benefits, discussions that are protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, guaranteeing the right to unionize.
The NLRB and Quicken engaged in settlement talks in recent weeks but did not settle in time to avert the start of trial Tuesday. The government is not seeking any monetary damages but seeks to have Quicken rewrite its employee rules and educate employees about their rights under the law.
As it happens, Linden and the Quicken witnesses indicated that Quicken CEO Bill Emerson sent all employees an e-mail last Friday saying the Big Book had been rescinded. But both the NLRB and Quicken agreed that the book had been distributed to at least some employees for a period of time.
The Big Book contained warnings against talking to the news media without permission and similar admonitions. Describing the rules as "overly broad," NLRB attorney Patricia Fedewa told Judge Goldman, "We believe these rules chill Section 7 conduct," that is, the right to discuss forming a union for collective bargaining.
Judge Goldman is expected to take up to several weeks to issue a decision in the case. If he rules against Quicken, the company has the right to appeal to the full NLRB board in Washington, D.C., and in the federal courts.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Quicken called the NLRB charges "meritless and frivolous claims" brought by "overzealous government officials seeking company admissions to untrue and trivial allegations." And noting that the company has been cited as among the best places to work in America in annual surveys by Fortune magazine and others, the statement said, "Our workplace has been widely recognized as having one of the most unique and effective cultures in the country."
The Quicken case is just the latest in a string of cases filed recently by the NLRB against companies that allegedly restrict their employees' rights under the law. The cases collectively take on urgency in the age of social media, when employees at various companies around the country have faced discipline for remarks posted online.
In a March 18 memo to all NLRB field officials, Richard Griffin, the board's general counsel in Washington, D.C., offered guidance on recent cases involving employer rules. He noted that the NLRB had recently settled cases against Wendy's International and other companies, and said that "employees have a ... right to discuss wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees, as well as with nonemployees, such as union representatives."
Griffin's memo added, "Thus, an employer's confidentiality policy that either specifically prohibits employee discussions of terms and conditions of employment — such as wages, hours or workplace complaints — or that employees would reasonably understand to prohibit such discussions, violates the Act."
Among the types of overly restrictive rules from various cases that Griffin's memo called unlawful were such restrictions as "(I)f something is not public information, you must not share it," and, "Sharing of (overheard conversations at the work site) with your coworkers, the public, or anyone outside of your immediate work group is strictly prohibited."
Griffin noted in his memo that employees have the right to criticize or protest their employer's labor policies or treatment of employees, and even to express that dissatisfaction in ways that might be considered disrespectful, negative or rude. Employer rules that restrict that free speech "will be found unlawfully over-broad."
Contact John Gallagher: 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @jgallagherfreep.
No comments:
Post a Comment