Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: Ross' Employment Law BlogNo-match letter no-discussion rule was unfair labor practice
Today's NLRB Law Memo reports on an interesting crossover between no-match letters and employer no-discussion rules.
The federal government issues a "no-match letter" when an employee's name does not match up with the reported social security number. It's an attempt to prevent illegal workers from faking social security numbers, and to prevent employers from employing illegals.
When the folks at Ashley Furniture got a no-match letter, they told their employees that they were required to resolve the discrepancy with the Social Security Administration, and instructed them not to discuss their no-match letters with anyone. They also told an employee not to discuss with anyone that he had received a disciplinary warning and that his "green card" had expired.
The problem with that, of course is that ordinarily employees have a statutory right to discuss workplace issues with fellow-employees. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
So one of the employees filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, and the NLRB found that the disciplinary warning, green card issue, and no-match letters constituted Section 7 "workplace matters" which employees were free to discuss among themselves or with outsiders, and that the employer could not lawfully prohibit such discussions absent a legitimate and substantial business justification.
The employer asserted several confidentiality concerns as justification for its "no-discussion" requirement.
The NLRB found that the employer's defense failed because none of its confidentiality concerns outweighed the employees' Section 7 right to discuss the workplace matters at issue. Accordingly, the NLRB found that the employer's no-discussion requirement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The case: Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., 353 NLRB No.71 (12/31/2008).
Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on January 12, 2009 (boomark / email).
Immigration Related Employment Discrimination & Unfair Labor Practices
What to do about employers who discriminate because of national origin
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations
Whats a Home Loan Modification?
How to Qualify for a Home Loan Modification
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
EB-1 and EB-2 Visa Status
Obtaining a Green Card Without Going Through the Labor Certification Process
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
Match.com
Faces Potential Class Action
California Labor Laws
alleged violations of California labor laws such as overtime pay, discrimination and harassment.
Best Buy
Faces Class Action Over Price Match Guarantee
UPS Faces Fair Labor Wages Class Action
UPS Faces Fair Labor Wages Class Action
Valero Energy
Faces National Labor Class Action
US Postal Service Workers
File Labor and Wages Class Action

Management, Labor Agree: Changes to No-Match and E-Verify Programs Not Going to Work
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NO-MATCH RULE
No-Match Rule Blocked (Updated Nov. 24, 2007)
NLRB Issues Unfair Labor Practice Checklists
Obama Adminstration Inheriting Fight Over No-Match Rule









