By Daniel Wiessner
Aug 2 (Reuters) - The agency that enforces U.S. labor
laws on Wednesday made it more difficult for businesses to
defend workplace rules that could interfere with employees'
rights to join unions, as part of a case involving waste
disposal company Stericycle SRCL.O .
The Democrat-led National Labor Relations Board's 3-1
decision could provide a boost to unions amid an uptick in labor
organizing that includes high-profile campaigns among employees
of Starbucks Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Apple Inc and other large
companies.
Routine work rules like those banning disparagement,
solicitation or inappropriate social media posts are illegal if
a worker could reasonably construe them as prohibiting protected
activity such as discussing working conditions or distributing
union literature, the NLRB said.
The board overturned a 2017 ruling by appointees of
Republican former President Donald Trump that said workplace
policies were valid as long as they were adopted for legitimate
business reasons.
NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran in a statement said the Trump-era
decision, which involved Boeing Co, did not give enough
consideration to the chilling effect that workplace policies can
have on workers' labor rights.
"Under the new standard, the Board will carefully consider
both the potential impact of work rules on employees and the
interests that employers articulate in support of their rules,"
said McFerran, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden.
Wednesday's ruling stems from a union's challenge to
Stericycle Inc's policies barring worker conduct that could harm
the company's reputation or create conflicts of interest.
The labor board did not rule on the merits of the case but
sent it back to an administrative judge to apply the new
standard.
The board's Democratic majority said employers can rebut the
presumption that a rule is unlawful by proving to the NLRB that
it "advances a legitimate and substantial interest" that cannot
be addressed with a narrower policy.
NLRB Member Marvin Kaplan, a Trump appointee, in a
dissenting opinion said that standard will be virtually
impossible for many employers to meet. He added that his
colleagues had failed to balance workers' labor rights with
businesses' ability to adopt reasonable rules.
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; editing by
Susan Heavey)
((daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com))