By:  Ashley Kircher

On Tuesday, an NLRB administrative law judge ruled that two provisions in an employment agreement signed by all of Quicken Loans, Inc.’s mortgage bankers violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.  See Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 28-CA-75857.  ALJ Joel Biblowitz found that the provisions, which were meant to

By Joshua M. Henderson.

Not to put it too indelicately, but has the NLRB made a fetish of the Section 7 right to engage in “concerted activities . . . for mutual aid or protection” — in the sense of rendering it excessive attention, even reverence?  One can easily conclude from its recent decisions

By Marshall  B. Babson.

As we’ve blogged about in an earlier post, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued the third in a series of “Reports” regarding social media policies, in which he addressed overly broad restrictions regarding confidentiality, standards of decorum on a website, fraternization with fellow employees, the airing grievances online,

By Jeffrey A. Berman

Employer rules prohibiting off-duty employees from returning to the worksite are generally lawful provided they meet the three-part test established in Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976).  Under this test, a rule prohibiting off-duty employee access to a facility is valid if it limits access solely to the

By Ronald J. Kramer

A disturbing trend is beginning to appear.  The NLRB, or at least Region 28, is issuing and prosecuting complaints alleging that “at will” employment provisions in employee handbook acknowledgement forms (and presumably handbooks and employment applications) interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity.  Although we are