1. Mixed Signals For Employers From the Feds? Apparently So…

    One government agency (the National Labor Relations Board) thinks that workplace investigations don’t require confidentiality. Another agency (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) believes in “maximum possible secrecy” in the workplace. Tension between the two? You bet…

    From labor & employment attorney Scott Silverman (Akerman Senterfitt):

    “In Banner, an employee refused to follow his supervisor’s instructions, on the basis of health and safety concerns, and thereafter received a ‘coaching’ for insubordination. In connection with the ‘coaching,’ the employee complained, and the employer’s human relations consultant used a standard ‘Interview of Complainant Form’ to request the employee to not discuss the matter with co-workers while the investigation was ongoing.

    The Board held that a ‘blanket’ rule of providing confidentiality directives in connection with internal complaint interviews violates employees’ federal rights. Rather, a prohibition on employee discussion must be supported by a legitimate business justification…

    Employers should recognize the potential conflict of the Board’s ruling with the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors. The Enforcement Guidance states that an employer’s anti-harassment policy should contain ‘assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible . . information about the allegation of harassment should be shared only with those who need to know about it.’”

    Read the full update:

Notes

  1. jdsupra-biznews posted this