Some companies use an anti-fraternization policy to keep their workplaces fair and productive. If you’re one of them, watch out for this legal pitfall.
In a recent case, employees at a security guard firm sued the company, claiming a part of the employee handbook violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The policy read: Employees must not “fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees.”
The employees claimed the rule limited their right to discuss the “terms and conditions of their employment” and engage in union activity. The federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, agreed, citing the very broad meaning of the word “fraternize.”
Watch your words
The lesson: Like with all policies, employers have to walk a fine line between being too general and being too specific. At the hearing in this case, the company said the policy wasn’t intended to stop union-related discussions and activity, but only to keep interpersonal relationships from compromising the security they’re paid to provide.
If that was the case, the court said, the term “fraternize” could have been kept out of the policy completely, leaving the parts about “dating or becoming overly friendly” to do the job. Otherwise, employees were reasonable in interpreting the policy as a ban on protected activity.
Cite: Guardsmark, LLC v. NLRB
