Application of Firm’s ‘Fraternization’ Rule Will Decide Its Legality

Q: Upper management at my husband’s company has scolded those who work directly with unions, saying the salaried workers should stop “fraternizing.”

Can a company legally punish salaried workers for maintaining friendly relationships with their union co-workers in and out of the workplace? It sounds like intimidation.

--K.R., Long Beach

A: Whether the rule is illegal depends on how it is applied.

Under federal labor law, a company is free to establish policies prohibiting members of management, supervisors, confidential employees and security guards from socializing with rank-and-file union workers.

These groups of employees are considered to owe their absolute, undivided loyalty to the business enterprise itself.

In contrast, a company cannot prohibit fraternization among other kinds of employees, including salaried employees who are not management, supervisors, confidential employees or guards. These workers can file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board if they are threatened with discipline for socializing with their co-workers simply because they are members of a union.

The policy may be unlawful for a second reason. Since 2000, California law has prohibited employers from disciplining employees for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.

This law would make it illegal for your husband’s company to take action against salaried employees for socializing with union co-workers away from the workplace before or after hours. A salaried employee who is disciplined for violating the company’s policy can either sue or file a claim with the California labor commissioner.

--Joseph L. Paller Jr.

Union, employee attorney

Gilbert & Sackman

Employers Not Obliged to Tell Workers of Accrued Vacation

Q: I work for a company that has a limit on the vacation that employees can accrue. Does the company have an obligation to notify employees periodically about the number of vacation days they have accrued?

--D.G., Irvine

A: No. Employers have the right to establish reasonable limits on the amount of vacation pay their employees may accrue.

The state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement takes the position that employers do have to provide their employees with advance notice before establishing such limits.

The division also suggests that employers give enough notice so that employees who are at or over the new limit will have a reasonable amount of time to reduce their accrued vacation below the limit.

However, after employers establish and announce limits on the amount of vacation their employees may accrue, they are not legally required to notify employees periodically about the number of vacation days they have accrued.

--Stacy D. Shartin

Employment law attorney

Seyfarth Shaw

Limited Releases on Applications Are Legal

Q: Recently, I have seen several public sector employment applications with what appears to be new phrasing.

The applications state that the applicant agrees to release current and previous employers from liability for damage that may result from the employers’ responses during background checks.

I thought this practice of requiring applicants to sign away their rights was illegal. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with these applications?

--L.T., Mission Viejo

A: It is not unusual for an employer or any other party, for that matter, to require others to sign a release before entering into a relationship.

It is certainly legal to require people to waive rights on claims arising in the past. It also is legal to obtain a limited release on certain claims that might arise in the future.

Indeed, past employers may be reluctant to give candid responses without having you sign some sort of a release first.

Releases of liability in the future are limited to negligent wrongful acts. They do not extend to intentional reckless or malicious types of violation. It also is not appropriate to release claims that you have a right to pursue by statute.

If you refuse to sign such a release, you may give up employment opportunities, however. You might consider signing the release, then trying to monitor any impact on you.

If you end up getting the job, you might be willing to overlook any negative comments. But if you don’t get the job, you may be concerned whether your former employer went beyond good-faith opinions, making malicious or intentionally erroneous comments about you.

If you feel the comments were malicious or intentionally incorrect, you might have a claim against your former employer, regardless of the release.

--Don D. Sessions

Employee rights attorney

Mission Viejo

*

If you have a question about an on-the-job situation, please mail it to Shop Talk, Los Angeles Times, P.O. Box 2008, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; dictate it to (714) 966-7873, or e-mail it to shoptalk@latimes.com. Include your initials and hometown.