G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 121
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. d/b/a
Newmark Grubb Knight Frank and Patrick
Thurman. Case 28‒CA‒178893
July 16, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND
EMANUEL
On November 19, 2018, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an order remanding several facially neutral
work rules maintained by the Respondent, and alleged to
be unlawful, for analysis under Boeing Co., 365 NLRB
No. 154 (2017). On November 8, 2019, Administrative
Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued the attached decision
on remand. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel also filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an an-
swering brief.1
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions and briefs2 and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions only to
the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.3
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the following six poli-
cies in its employee handbook: Responsive Action, Out-
side Employment and Business Activities, Reference In-
quiries and Requests for Employee Information, Company
Property, Social Media, and Outside Speaking and Writ-
ing Activities. We find merit in the Respondent’s excep-
tions regarding these rules and, accordingly, we reverse
the judge’s findings and dismiss these allegations. We
also find merit in the General Counsel’s exceptions based
on the judge’s failure to address the allegation that the
1 Subsequently, the Board issued a notice to show cause why one
allegation, regarding the Use of Company Information Technology Pol-
icy, should not be severed and remanded to the judge for further proceed-
ings in light of the judge’s reliance on Purple Communications, Inc., 361
NLRB 1050 (2014), which was overruled by the Board in Caesars En-
tertainment d/b/a Rio-All Suites Hotel & Casino, 368 NLRB No. 143
(2019). The Respondent and the General Counsel each filed a response
opposing remand to the judge. The Respondent contends the existing
record sufficiently demonstrates that its policy is lawful under Caesars
Entertainment and the complaint allegation should be dismissed. The
General Counsel, similarly not seeing merit in the allegation under Cae-
sars Entertainment, moves in his response to amend the complaint to
withdraw the allegation. Pursuant to Sec. 102.17 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, we grant the General Counsel’s unopposed motion to
withdraw the allegation regarding the Use of Company Information
Technology Policy, and we remand the allegation to the Regional Direc-
tor for further appropriate action.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by including the lan-
guage “Confidential—For Internal Use Only” in the footer
of every handbook page, and we herein find that violation.
I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
In Boeing, above, the Board established a new standard
for determining whether a facially neutral work rule, rea-
sonably interpreted, would unlawfully interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights.4 The Board overruled the “reasonably construe”
prong of Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB
646 (2004), which held that a facially neutral work rule
would be found unlawful if employees would reasonably
construe it to prohibit Section 7 activity. Id. at 647. In-
stead, the Board in Boeing held that,
when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or hand-
book provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would
potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights,
the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and ex-
tent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) le-
gitimate justifications associated with the rule.
Boeing, 365 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 3 (emphasis in
original).
In conducting this evaluation, the Board will strike the
proper balance between the employer’s asserted business
justifications for the policy against the extent to which the
policy interferes with employee rights under the Act,
viewing the rule or policy from the employees’ perspec-
tive. Id. Ultimately, the Board places work rules into one
of three categories:
Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates
as lawful to maintain, either because [(a)] the rule, when
reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere
with the exercise of NLRA rights; or [(b)] the potential
adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by jus-
tifications associated with the rule. . . .
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of allegations re-
garding the Respondent’s Tape Recording Policy, Cooperation in Inves-
tigations and Litigation Policy, Personal Appearance Policy, or Stand-
ards of Conduct Policy.
3 We shall amend the judge’s conclusions of law consistent with our
findings and legal conclusions herein. We shall modify the judge’s rec-
ommended Order to conform to our findings and the Board’s standard
remedial language, as set forth in full below, and in accordance with our
decision in Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68 (2020).
We shall also substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modi-
fied.
4 Reasonable interpretation of a rule is from “the perspective of an
objectively reasonable employee who is aware of his legal rights but who
also interprets work rules as they apply to the everydayness of his job.
The reasonable employee does not view every employer policy through
the prism of the NLRA.” LA Specialty Produce Co., 368 NLRB No. 93,
slip op. at 2 (2019) (internal quotations omitted).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized
scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would pro-
hibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether
any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is out-
weighed by legitimate justifications.
Category 3 will include rules that the Board will desig-
nate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit
or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse im-
pact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications
associated with the rule.
Id., slip op. at 3‒4 (emphasis in original).5 These catego-
ries “represent a classification of results from the Board’s
application of the new test” and “are not part of the test
itself.” Id., slip op. at 4 (emphasis in original).
Under this classification scheme, if the General Counsel
fails to meet his initial burden of establishing that a rea-
sonable employee would interpret a rule as potentially in-
terfering with the exercise of Section 7 rights, the analysis
proceeds no further. LA Specialty, 368 NLRB No. 93, slip
op. at 2. The rule at issue will be lawful and fit within
Boeing Category 1(a). Id. If the General Counsel estab-
lishes that a reasonable employee would consider the rule
to potentially interfere with Section 7 rights, the Board
will then balance that potential interference against the
employer’s legitimate justifications for the rule. Id., slip
op. at 3. When the balance favors the employer’s interests,
the rule at issue will be lawful and fit within Boeing Cate-
gory 1(b). Id. When the potential interference with Sec-
tion 7 rights outweighs any possible employer justifica-
tions, the rule at issue will be unlawful and fit within Boe-
ing Category 3. Id. Finally, in some instances, “it will not
be possible to draw any broad conclusions about the legal-
ity of a particular rule because the context of the rule and
the competing rights and interests involved are specific to
that rule and that employer. These rules will fit within
Boeing Category 2.” Id.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Responsive Action Policy
The Respondent’s policy covering consequences result-
ing from individual complaints of harassment, discrimina-
tion, or retaliation includes a final paragraph captioned
“False Allegations”:
If, after investigating a complaint (including a complaint
of harassment, discrimination or retaliation), the Com-
pany determines that the complaint is frivolous, that the
person making the complaint intentionally or recklessly
made false allegations or that persons involved in the
5 In LA Specialty, the Board redesignated the subdivisions of Boeing
Category 1 as (a) and (b). 368 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 2‒3.
investigation provided false information, the individ-
ual(s) who made the false allegations or gave the false
information may be subject to appropriate discipline, up
to and including termination of employment, or such
other responsive action as determined by the Company.
The judge found that this policy would deter employees
from protected concerted activity out of fear they could be
disciplined for innocent factual errors and that the intru-
sion is not outweighed by the Respondent’s interest in re-
liable investigations. We disagree that employees would
reasonably interpret this policy to potentially interfere
with Section 7 rights. The context of addressing “frivo-
lous” complaints and “intentionally or recklessly . . . false
allegations” makes clear that the policy is concerned with
intentional or reckless falsehoods (which have no protec-
tion in the Act) and not innocent errors. We find this pol-
icy is lawful and fits within Boeing Category 1(a).
B. Outside Employment and Business Activities Policy
The Respondent’s policy on outside employment and
other business activities most pertinently states:
In order to ensure regulatory compliance and avoid po-
tential conflicts of interest, employees are prohibited—
without prior written notice to and formal written ap-
proval from the General Counsel or Head of Compli-
ance—from participating in outside work activities that
might present a conflict of interest (including employ-
ment relationships, consulting relationships and service
on boards of directors of corporations, educational insti-
tutions and charitable/not-for-profit institutions) and
from making non-passive investments.
Here, and for other policies in this case, the judge erred
by analyzing the policy expressly from the viewpoint of
how employees “could reasonably read” the language, in-
stead of how reasonable employees would interpret it. In
finding that employees could interpret the policy to ban
organizing activities, the judge erred in finding possible
interference from an unlikely reading of the policy. See
LA Specialty, 368 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 2 (“[A] chal-
lenged rule may not be found unlawful merely because it
could be interpreted, under some hypothetical scenario, as
potentially limiting some type of Section 7 activity, or be-
cause the employer failed to eliminate all ambiguities
from the rule, an all-but-impossible task.”). The policy
self-evidently aims to prevent business conflicts of inter-
est from outside work activities—including employment,
consulting, or board memberships—not mere membership
in outside organizations or run-of-the-mill volunteering.
Accordingly, employees would not reasonably read the
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK 3
rule to extend to union organizing, which is a much differ-
ent activity than those described by the policy. Moreover,
although the rule could conceivably be interpreted to reach
holding a leadership position with a union or working for
a union for pay, we find that when reasonably interpreted,
the rule has no potential to interfere with such activities.
Holding such positions does not implicate the rule’s stated
purpose of ensuring regulatory compliance and avoiding
conflicts of interest. Policies limiting outside business re-
lationships are common and have no reasonable potential
to interfere with Section 7 rights. We find this policy is
lawful and fits within Boeing Category 1(a).
C. Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee
Information Policy
The Respondent’s policy on requests for employee in-
formation provides, in most relevant part:
All requests for information regarding a current or for-
mer Company employee must be forwarded to the Hu-
man Resources Department for a response. Should an
employee (including managers and supervisors) receive
a written or verbal request for a reference, the employee
should direct the individual seeking information (with-
out any on or “off the record” statement), or forward the
written request, immediately to the Human Resources
Department. . . .
No Company employee may provide a written reference
for or supply employee information regarding any cur-
rent or former employee without the permission of the
Human Resources Department. Under no circum-
stances should any Company employee release any in-
formation about any current or former employee orally.
The judge interpreted the altered quote—“No company
employee may . . . supply employee information . . . with-
out . . . permission”—out of context in finding that the
policy “could reasonably be construed to bar wage or re-
lated discussions.” Read in its full context, the policy
clearly is addressing formal reference requests and similar
inquiries about employees. Reasonable employees would
not read it to be concerned with discussions about wages
or other protected discussions amongst themselves or with
outside union representatives. We find this policy is law-
ful and fits within Boeing Category 1(a).
D. Company Property Policy
The Respondent’s property policy, in relevant part,
states:
Offices, cubicles, desks, computers, file cabinets, lock-
ers, and vehicles are Company property and must be
6 We granted, above, the General Counsel’s withdrawal of the com-
plaint allegation about the policy on email, the Use of Company
maintained according to Company rules and regulations.
All company property must be used solely for the Com-
pany’s benefit and business purposes, and not for the
employees’ or contractor’s personal benefit (or the ben-
efit of any other person or entity). The Company’s prop-
erty includes its funds, premises, equipment (such as
beepers, phones, computers, Blackberries, etc.) and sup-
plies, as well as proprietary information and intellectual
property (e.g., software, business plans, non-public in-
formation, ideas for new products and services, cus-
tomer, vendor and employee lists, confidential infor-
mation and materials).
The judge found this policy unlawful, reasoning that it
“can be reasonably construed by employees to bar all un-
authorized solicitation and other protected activity during
non-working hours at [the Respondent’s p]remises” and to
prohibit employees from using the Respondent’s email
systems. We disagree that employees would reasonably
interpret this policy to potentially interfere with protected
activity. Rather, we believe a reasonable employee would
understand the policy to be what it is, a general declaration
of the Respondent’s property rights, and would not view
it as a blanket prohibition of solicitation or other protected
activity at the facilities. Employees also would not rea-
sonably read this policy to concern the use of the Respond-
ent’s email systems because a separate policy, closely fol-
lowing this one in the handbook, addresses email use in
detail.6 We find this policy is lawful and fits within Boe-
ing Category 1(a).
E. Social Media Policy
The Respondent’s policy on social media provides:
The Company recognizes the importance of social me-
dia and that its professionals, practice groups, service
lines and offices are interested in social media as a way
to raise their visibility, communicate successes, solicit
new opportunities and raise their profiles in accordance
with the company’s overall strategy. Employees and
contractors must keep in mind; however, that, due to the
nature of its business and those of its affiliates, only
those types of social media that have been approved by
the Company’s management are permitted. As a general
matter, use of social media that provides for communi-
cation that the Company cannot capture and/or monitor
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and simi-
lar apps, as well as blogs and microblogs) is prohibited.
If an employee or contractor is uncertain whether a so-
cial network or other communication method is ap-
proved by the Company, they should seek guidance
Information Technology Policy. See supra fn. Error! Bookmark not
defined..
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
from Compliance or the Company’s information Tech-
nology staff.
. . . Where certain postings are permitted, the policy is
intended to ensure that any social media activities affili-
ated with the Company and its affiliate offices are used
appropriately, furnish accurate information, and are in
compliance with the Company’s established policy and
procedures. Employees and contractors are not permit-
ted to post in any fashion that would indicate that they
represent the Company or are speaking on the Com-
pany’s behalf unless permitted by the Social Media Pol-
icy or the Compliance Department.
Employees or contractors who are posting for personal
reasons (for example, making comments, blog entries,
posting on Twitter) should keep in mind that information
posted is not necessarily private (it may be shared far be-
yond the group of initial circulation) and cannot be “de-
leted” once it has been shared. Employees should not be
making personal posts on working time. Employees’
and contractors’ personal posts should not:
 Use the employee’s Company e-mail address or con-
tact number. If the fact that the employee works for
the Company . . . appears in a post, the employee . . .
must make clear that he/she is not representing the
Company and that the views expressed are his or her
own views and not those of the Company.
 Be false or misleading. Neither employees nor con-
tractors should post anonymously regarding the Com-
pany or clients, or its products of services. If an em-
ployee or a contractor see information on the internet
regarding the Company or its clients that he or she
feels should be rebutted or supported, the employee or
contractor should bring it to the attention of his/her
manager or the entity’s public relations staff.
 Use or disclose any Confidential Information of or re-
garding the Company or its clients, business partners
or staff.
 Violate company policy or laws (for example, con-
duct that violates the Company’s prohibitions against
intimidation, threats of violence, discrimination, har-
assment or retaliation, unauthorized use of the intel-
lectual property of others, or spamming).
The judge selectively quoted from the first two paragraphs
of this policy, without the context of the final paragraphs
on the personal use of social media, to find that employees
“could reasonably construe” this policy to bar social me-
dia use for Section 7 activity. The judge was mistaken.
The first two paragraphs, as employees would reasonably
understand, regulate social media use that involves speak-
ing on behalf of the Respondent or otherwise conducting
business. The latter half of the policy, unmentioned by the
judge, makes clear that personal social media use is not
prohibited, and includes guidelines that would not be rea-
sonably interpreted to prohibit Section 7 activity. We find
this policy is lawful and fits within Boeing Category 1(a).
F. Outside Speaking and Writing Activities Policy
The Respondent’s policy on outside speaking and writ-
ing states, “Prior Company approval must be obtained for
participation in any outside writing/publishing activities,
speaking engagements relating to the Company or any of
its affiliates, any of the Company’s business(es), industry
or markets in which it participates, participation in indus-
try seminars, and engaging in other similar activities.” In
finding this policy unlawful, the judge reasoned that it
“can be reasonably construed to bar [employees] from
speaking at union meetings about ‘the company.’” We
find, however, that employees would reasonably interpret
this policy to pertain only to professional speaking or writ-
ing engagements that could be viewed by the audience as
speaking on behalf of the Respondent and, therefore,
would not interpret it as applying to speaking at a union
meeting or other protected activity. We find this policy is
lawful and fits within Boeing Category 1(a).
G. Confidentiality Footer
Each page of the Respondent’s employee handbook in-
cludes the statement “Confidential—For Internal Use
Only” in its footer. As mentioned above, the judge failed
to mention or address the General Counsel’s allegation
that the Respondent’s maintenance of this language vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1). Addressing the merits of this alle-
gation, we find that the Respondent’s inclusion of this
footer was unlawful. Employees would reasonably inter-
pret the footer to prohibit sharing the employee handbook
or its terms and conditions with outside parties, such as
unions. Employees had no reason to know, as the Re-
spondent defends, that it was only a notation for adminis-
trative purposes so that the handbook would be posted on
the intranet site instead of the public website. The Re-
spondent offers no justification for this broad interference
with Section 7 activity, and we cannot imagine any justi-
fication for generally designating an employee handbook
confidential that would outweigh the adverse impact on
NLRA rights. Accordingly, we find this footer is unlawful
and fits within Boeing Category 3.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 2.
2. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by maintaining a ‘Confidential—For Internal Use
Only’ footer on each page of its employee handbook.
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK 5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc.
d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, Tucson, Arizona, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a footer in its employee handbook in-
dicating that the handbook is “Confidential – For Internal
Use Only.”
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the footer in its employee handbook indi-
cating that it is “Confidential – For Internal Use Only.”
(b) Furnish employees with an insert for the current em-
ployee handbook that (1) advises that the unlawful footer
has been rescinded or (2) provides a lawfully worded
footer on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful
provision, or publish and distribute to employees revised
employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful
provision or (2) provide a lawfully worded provision.
(c) Post copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix”7 at each of its facilities in the United States where its
employee handbook is in effect or has been in effect at any
time since December 23, 2015. Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business
or closed any of its facilities where the employee hand-
book was in effect on or after December 23, 2015, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
7 If the facilities involved in these proceedings are open and staffed
by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted
within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facilities involved in
these proceedings are closed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted within 14 days after
the facilities reopen and a substantial complement of employees have re-
turned to work, and the notices may not be posted until a substantial com-
plement of employees have returned to work. Any delay in the physical
employees employed at those facilities at any time since
December 23, 2015.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 28 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint allegation in-
volving the Use of Company Information Technology
Policy is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 28
for further appropriate action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found or remanded to the Regional Director.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 16, 2020
________________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
________________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
__________________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
posting of paper notices also applies to the electronic distribution of the
notice if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by electronic means. If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United
States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT maintain a footer in our employee hand-
book indicating that it is “Confidential – For Internal Use
Only.”
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind the footer in our employee handbook
that unlawfully indicates that it is “Confidential – For In-
ternal Use Only.”
WE WILL furnish you with an insert for the current em-
ployee handbook that (1) advises that the unlawful footer
has been rescinded or (2) provides a lawfully worded
footer on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful
provision, or WE WILL publish and distribute to you re-
vised employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the un-
lawful provision or (2) provide a lawfully worded provi-
sion.
G&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-178893 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of
the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273‒1940.
Nestor M. Zarate-Mancilla, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Derek Barella, Esq. (Winston & Strawn, LLP), for the Respond-
ent.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. The
Board remanded this case under Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154
(2017), to evaluate whether G&E Real Estate Management Ser-
vices, Inc. d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank (G&E or the
1 G&E sought judicial notice of the administrative records in BGC
Partners, Inc., Case 28–CA–195500 and Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Case
Respondent) maintained unlawful Employee Handbook rules.
Thereafter, the General Counsel (the GC) filed a Motion to
Amend Complaint, which condensed the complaint to 11 rules
allegations. As will be explained, 4 of these rules are valid, while
7 have been found to be unlawful.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In Boeing, regarding facially neutral rules akin to those at is-
sue herein, the Board held:
In cases [where] . . . facially neutral . . . rules . . ., when reason-
ably interpreted, would potentially interfere with §7 rights, the
Board will evaluate . . .: (i) the . . . extent of the potential impact
on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications . . . . [and] . .
. strike the proper balance between . . . asserted business justi-
fications and the invasion of employee rights . . . .
[T]he Board . . . [listed] three [rules] categories . . . .:
Category 1 . . . rules [are] lawful to maintain, either because
(i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not . . . interfere
with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse
impact . . . is outweighed by justifications . . . [for] the rule.
Examples . . . are the no-camera requirement in this case, the
“harmonious interactions and relationships” rule . . . at issue in
William Beaumont Hospital, and other rules requiring . . . basic
standards of civility . . . .
Category 2 . . . rules . . . warrant individualized scrutiny . . . as
to whether the rule, when reasonably interpreted, would pro-
hibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, and if so,
whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is
outweighed by legitimate justifications.
Category 3 . . . rules . . . [are] unlawful to maintain because
they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the
adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifica-
tions associated with the rule. An example would be a rule that
prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with
one another.
Id. at 15–16 (footnotes omitted, and emphasis added).
II. RESPONSIVE ACTION POLICY2
This Category 2 rule fails the Boeing balancing test. It states
that:
If, after investigating a complaint (including a complaint of har-
assment, discrimination or retaliation), the Company deter-
mines . . . that persons involved in the investigation provided
false information, the individual(s) who made the false allega-
tions or gave the false information may be subject to appropri-
ate discipline, up to and including termination . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §206.)
Concerning §7 rights, this rule would reasonably deter work-
ers from aiding investigations involving collective issues out of
fear that their innocent factual errors might lead to discipline.
28–CA–195506 in lieu of reopening the record for additional evidence.
This request was granted. The parties filed briefs on May 31, 2019.
2 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(2) and 5 of the complaint.
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK 7
Employees may also refrain from concerted speech aimed at im-
proving their workplace due to the same concerns. This rule,
notably, does not distinguish between blameless, non-negligent
factual errors and intentional defamation, which would strike a
more reasonable balance.
Concerning G&E’s interests, it holds a valid interest in relia-
bly investigating workplace complaints. It also maintains a stake
in discouraging employee dishonesty.
Boeing’s balancing test tips against G&E. This rule, which
covers all falsehoods (i.e., as opposed to only defamation), is a
Category 2 rule that, when reasonably interpreted, bars innocent
employee errors on collective matters. This is a significant in-
fringement, which undercuts collective speech during workplace
investigations. This interference is not outweighed by G&E’s
interests, which might still be reasonably advanced by limiting
the rule’s scope to defamatory speech.3 This rule is, accordingly,
invalid; simply put, it fails to strike the proper balance between
§7 rights and business interests.
III. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES POLICY4
This Category 2 rule similarly fails the Boeing balancing test.
It provides that:
[E]mployees are prohibited–without . . . approval . . . from par-
ticipating in outside work activities that might present a conflict
of interest . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §303) (emphasis added).
Concerning §7 rights, this rule could reasonably be construed
by employees to ban organizing G&E’s workers, making con-
nected home visits to such coworkers, or acting as a union salt
without approval. Its impact on core §7 activities is, thus, sub-
stantial.
Regarding G&E, it has a valid interest in avoiding conflicts
and promoting loyalty. Such breaches may offend a client, harm
a business relationship, or undercut workplace harmony.
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. Employees can
reasonably construe this rule as a complete ban against organiz-
ing coworkers and engaging in other §7 activities without ap-
proval. G&E can address this infringement, while simultane-
ously safeguarding its valid interest in avoiding conflicts, by, for
example, excluding union and other N.L.R.A. activities from the
rule’s scope.5 I find, as a result, that the §7 interests at stake
outweigh G&E’s legitimate business interests, and the rule is un-
lawful.
IV. REFERENCE INQUIRIES AND REQUESTS FOR EMPLOYEE
INFORMATION POLICY6
This policy is an invalid Boeing Category 3 rule. It states as
follows:
All requests for information regarding a[n] . . . employee must
be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for re-
sponse. Should an employee . . . receive a . . . request for a
reference, the employee should direct the individual seeking
3 G&E has neither explained why it did not limit the rule in this way
nor has it clarified why disciplining employees, who make innocent fac-
tual errors during workplace investigations, advances its valid business
interests.
4 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(4) and 5 of the complaint.
information . . . to the Human Resources Department . . . .
No Company employee may . . . supply employee infor-
mation . . . without . . . permission . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §403) (emphasis added).
Concerning §7 rights, this rule could reasonably be construed
to bar wage or related discussions. This is a great intrusion on
the right to share such data for collective purposes.
Regarding G&E, it has a valid stake in handling reference re-
quests consistently. It also has an interest in sharing employment
data in a centralized manner.
This policy is an invalid Boeing Category 3 rule. It deeply
impacts §7 activities and can be reasonably construed to bar
wage and related discussions without consent. G&E can address
its valid concerns regarding references and employee data re-
leases by simply deleting the rule’s second paragraph (i.e., “No
Company employee may . . . supply employee information . . .
without . . . permission.”). It has offered no explanation for this
omission, which would present a reasonable balancing of collec-
tive and business interests. In sum, this rule limits protected con-
duct and the adverse impact on such rights is not outweighed by
G&E’s justifications. Boeing, supra (“rule[s] that prohibit . . .
employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another”
are invalid under Category 3.).
V. COMPANY PROPERTY POLICY7
This rule is not covered by Boeing. It is unlawful under extant
Board law. It states:
Offices, cubicles, desks, computers, file cabinets, lockers, and
vehicles are Company property and must be maintained ac-
cording to Company rules and regulations. All Company prop-
erty must be used solely for the Company's benefit and busi-
ness purposes, and not for the employee's . . . personal benefit
(or the benefit of any other person or entity). The Company's
property includes its . . . premises, equipment . . . and supplies,
as well as proprietary information and intellectual property
(e.g., . . . non-public information, . . . customer, vendor and em-
ployee lists, confidential information and materials) . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §703.)
This policy, which bans non-business usage of G&E’s facili-
ties and equipment, is unlawful. It can be reasonably construed
by employees to bar all unauthorized solicitation and other pro-
tected activity during non-working hours at G&E’s facility re-
mises, as well as prohibit employees from using G&E’s email
systems during their non-working time for §7 activities. See,
e.g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945);
Purple Communications, 361 NLRB 1050, 1066 (2014) (“right
of employees to use their employers' email systems for protected
communications on nonworking time”); Stoddard-Quirk, 138
NLRB 615 (1962) (prohibition on unauthorized distribution of
5 G&E has neither explained why it did not limit the rule in this way
nor has it clarified why disciplining employees, who engage in outside
union activities without approval, advances its valid business interests.
6 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(5) and 5 of the complaint.
7 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(7) and 5 of the complaint.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
literature on company premises is unlawful).8
VI. USE OF COMPANY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY9
This rule is not covered by Boeing. It is also unlawful under
extant Board law. It states:
Computers, electronic communication, electronic information
and other technology . . . support the Company's business. The
Company provides many of its employees with access to tele-
communication and electronic communication means and
computer systems owned or operated by the Company . . . .
It is the responsibility of each employee . . . to ensure that this
technology and all Information Systems are used for proper
business purposes . . . .
Users should not use or access Company Information Systems
in any manner that is unlawful, inappropriate, or contrary to the
Company's best interests . . . . Users may only use Company
Information Systems in a manner that is consistent with the
Company's policies and procedures . . . .
[V]oice mail and . . . e-mail . . . are to be used for business
purposes only.
(GC Exh. 2 at §707.) This policy, which bans the non-business
usage of information technology (IT) equipment, is overbroad
and unlawful, inasmuch as it bans employees from using email
and IT systems during non-working time for §7 activities. Pur-
ple Communications, supra.
VII. TAPE RECORDING POLICY10
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It states that:
[I]t is a violation of Company policy for an employee . . . to
record conversations at or related to their work or services at
the Company with a tape recorder, mobile device or any other
recording device or to make a video recording in a work-related
setting unless (1) prior approval has been granted by the Com-
pany. . ., or (2) use of the device has been otherwise properly
authorized in connection with the employee's . . . performance
of his . . . assigned duties . . . .
Violation of this policy will result in . . . disciplinary action, up
to and including immediate termination of employment . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §708.)
This facially neutral policy requires a balancing test, which
tips in favor of G&E. On the one hand, this rule overbroadly
encompasses recordings made for one’s mutual aid and protec-
tion. G&E, however, has a keen interest in the maintenance of
this rule, which controls unauthorized recordings of its business
operations. This rule is analogous to the Boeing no-camera rule,
which was classified as a valid Category 1 policy. Boeing, supra.
VIII. SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY11
This policy is an unlawful Boeing Category 2 rule. It states as
follows:
The Company recognizes the importance of social media . . . .
8 Boeing did not overrule Purple Communications.
9 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(9) and 5 of the complaint.
10 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(10) and 5 of the complaint.
[O]nly those types of social media that have been approved by
the Company. . . are permitted. As a general matter, use of so-
cial media that provides for communication that the, Company
cannot capture and/or monitor (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Snap-
chat, Instagram and similar apps . . .) is prohibited. . . .
Where certain postings are permitted, the policy is intended to
ensure that any social media activities affiliated with the Com-
pany and its affiliate offices are used appropriately, furnish ac-
curate information, and are in compliance with the Company's
established policies and procedures . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §802.)
Concerning §7 rights, employees could reasonably construe
this rule to bar social media usage that G&E cannot monitor as
well as online commentary that is not pre-approved. This effec-
tively bars workers discussing their wages and collective con-
cerns on social media, which is a substantial §7 infringement.
Regarding G&E, it has a valid interest in maintaining a positive
online presence and controlling online commentary made by its
agents.
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. Employees can
reasonably construe this rule as a blanket prohibition against en-
gaging in unapproved §7 activities on social media. G&E can
adeptly address this substantial infringement, while simultane-
ously safeguarding its valid interests in maintaining a positive
online image, by limiting the rule to state, inter alia, that, “em-
ployees cannot act as a spokesperson for G&E on social media
without authorization.” This narrowing would create a fairer
balance and produce a valid Category 1 rule, which allows for
social media discussions of workplace issues by non-spokesper-
sons, while protecting G&E’s online image. G&E offered no
explanation for this omission. This rule is, accordingly, invalid.
IX. OUTSIDE SPEAKING AND WRITING ACTIVITIES POLICY12
This policy is an unlawful Boeing Category 2 rule. It states
that:
Prior Company approval must be obtained for participation in
any outside writing/publishing activities, speaking engage-
ments relating to the Company . . . and engaging in other simi-
lar activities. . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §803.)
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. The impact on
§7 rights is substantial. The rule is not limited to controlling
those employees who take an unauthorized public stance on be-
half of G&E. Moreover, it overbroadly requires all employees
to obtain approval for any discourse “relating to the company,”
which can be reasonably construed to bar them from speaking at
union meetings about “the company.” G&E could validly nar-
row the rule to state, inter alia, that, “employees cannot serve as
a spokesperson for the company without authorization.” This
narrowing would fairly advance its interests, create a valid Cat-
egory 1 rule, and no longer leave workers unable to discuss their
workplace as nonspokespersons without approval. G&E has,
again, offered no explanation for this omission. This rule is,
11 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(12) and 5 of the complaint.
12 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(13) and 5 of the complaint.
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK 9
thus, invalid.
X. COOPERATION IN INVESTIGATIONS AND LITIGATION POLICY13
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It provides that:
Employees . . . are required to cooperate with . . . internal in-
vestigations and the defense or prosecution of claims . . . . by
providing truthful information or testimony in interviews,
meetings or proceedings . . . . In the event the investigation or
claim involves allegations made by the employee . . . against
the Company, the employee . . . will be required to provide in-
formation that the Company views as necessary to its internal
investigation . . . but will not be required to provide assistance
to . . . its defense or prosecution of the claim.
(GC Exh. 2 at §804.)
The Boeing balancing test tips in favor of G&E. Employees
would not reasonably read this rule to require participation in a
ULP investigation, which infringes upon their §7 right to refuse
to cooperate in a ULP investigation. This rule is silent on ULP
investigations and, absent some context referencing such inves-
tigations, employees would reasonably interpret this rule to only
apply to general investigations of workplace misconduct. Thus,
given G&E’s keen interest in fairly investigating workplace mis-
conduct and the rule’s silence on ULPs, the potential adverse im-
pact on protected rights is outweighed by G&E’s interests.
XI. PERSONAL APPEARANCE POLICY14
This policy, which bans, “clothing with printed slogans/pro-
motions,” is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. (GC Exh. 2 at
§811.) It is improbable that employees would reasonably under-
stand this rule, when viewed in its entirety, to bar union insignia.
The portion of the rule at issue is a single bullet-point contained
in a lengthy dress code rule. Given that the §7 impact is minor,
and G&E has a valid interest in a dress code, this rule survives
the Boeing balancing text.
XII. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT POLICY15
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It provides that:
We require and expect our employees and contractors [. . .] to
exhibit and act with common courtesy, decency, dignity and
respect, and to exercise sound business judgment. This not
only involves sincere respect for the rights and feelings of oth-
ers but also demands that employees and contractors refrain
from any behavior that might be harmful to themselves, their
coworkers and colleagues, and/or the Company or that might
be viewed unfavorably by current or potential customers, the
industry or the public at large . . . .
Listed below are some examples of conduct that is unaccepta-
ble. Some of these examples are relevant to both employees
and contractors; others (primarily those related to hours and lo-
cation of work, time records, and work supervision) are not ap-
plicable to contractors.
This list should not be viewed as being all-inclusive, as it is not
13 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(15) and 5 of the complaint.
14 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(17) and 5 of the complaint.
15 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(18) and 5 of the complaint.
possible to list all forms of behavior that are considered unac-
ceptable. Unacceptable conduct may result in immediate dis-
ciplinary action, including warnings, suspensions or termina-
tion of employment, or corrective action, including notice of
violation, termination of employment or suspension of ser-
vices. [. . .]
Examples of conduct likely to lead to disciplinary or corrective
action include:
 Any conduct that could be construed as harming the opera-
tions or reputation of the Company . . . .
(GC Exh. 2 at §813) (emphasis added).
The Boeing balancing test tips in favor of G&E. This rule is
essentially a civility rule, which was found valid in Boeing. Id.
(finding that employers may maintain rules requiring “harmoni-
ous relationships” in the workplace and can require basic stand-
ards of “civility.”). G&E has a strong stake in workplace civility,
which deters unlawful harassment, prevents violence, limits con-
flict, and promotes productivity. Such interests outweigh the
somewhat light impact on §7 rights. This rule is, therefore, a
lawful Category 1 rule.16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. G&E is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of §2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. G&E violated §8(a)(1) by maintaining these Employee
Handbook policies:
(a) “Responsive Action” policy, which subjects workers who
non-maliciously provide false information during investigations
to potential discipline and discharge.
(b) “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy,
which bans employees “from participating in outside work ac-
tivities that might present a conflict of interest.”
(c) “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee Infor-
mation” policy, which bans workers from supplying employee
information to outside entities without authorization.
(d) “Company Property” policy, which bars all unauthorized
solicitation and other protected activity from G&E’s facilities,
and bans using email during non-working time for non-business
purposes.
(e) “Use of Company Information Technology” policy, which
bans employees from using email and other information technol-
ogy systems during non-working time for non-business pur-
poses.
(f) “Social Media” policy, which requires employees to ob-
tain consent prior to posting anything concerning the company
on social media, and employer monitoring.
(g) “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy, which
requires pre-approval before employees’ write or speak publicly
about their workplace.
3. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce
within the meaning of § 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
16 The Boeing Board noted that any adverse effect on §7 rights was
comparatively slight since a broad range of activities protected by the
NLRA are consistent with basic standards of harmony and civility. Boe-
ing, supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
REMEDY
Having found that G&E committed unfair labor practices, it is
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the Act. Given that its policies are main-
tained on a companywide basis, it shall be ordered to post a no-
tice at all of its facilities where the unlawful policies have been,
or are, in effect. See Longs Drug Stores California, 347 NLRB
500, 501 (2006); Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005).
Its duty to rescind or modify the unlawful policies is governed
by Guardsmark LLC, supra.17 It shall nationally distribute reme-
dial notices via email, intranet, internet, or other appropriate
electronic means to its employees, in addition to the traditional
physical posting of paper notices, if it customarily communicates
with workers in this manner. See J Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
11 (2010).18
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended19
ORDER
G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Newmark
Grubb Knight Frank, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a “Responsive Action” policy in its Em-
ployee Handbook, which subjects workers who non-maliciously
provide false information during workplace investigations to dis-
cipline and discharge.
(b) Maintaining an “Outside Employment and Business Ac-
tivities” policy in its Employee Handbook, which bans employ-
ees “from participating in outside work activities that might pre-
sent a conflict of interest.”
(c) Maintaining a “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Em-
ployee Information” policy in its Employee Handbook, which
bans workers from supplying employee information to outside
entities without authorization.
(d) Maintaining a “Company Property” policy in its Em-
ployee Handbook, which bars all unauthorized solicitation and
other protected activity from its facilities, and bans using email
during non-working time for non-business purposes.
(e) Maintaining a “Use of Company Information Technol-
ogy” policy in its Employee Handbook, which bans employees
from using email and other information technology systems dur-
ing non-working time for non-business purposes.
(f) Maintaining a “Social Media” policy in its Employee
Handbook, which requires employees to obtain consent prior to
posting anything concerning the company on social media and
17 “The Respondent may comply with our Order by rescinding the
unlawful provisions and republishing its employee handbook without
them. We recognize, however, that republishing the handbook could en-
tail significant costs. Accordingly, the Respondent may supply the em-
ployees either with handbook inserts stating that the unlawful rules have
been rescinded, or with new and lawfully worded rules on adhesive back-
ing which will cover the old and unlawfully broad rules, until it repub-
lishes the handbook without the unlawful provisions. Thereafter, any
copies of the handbook that are printed with the unlawful rules must in-
clude the new inserts before being distributed to employees.” Guards-
mark, supra at 812 fn. 8.
requires employer monitoring.
(g) Maintaining an “Outside Speaking and Writing Activi-
ties” policy in its Employee Handbook, which requires pre-ap-
proval before employees’ write or speak publicly.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by §7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind or modify the language in the following provi-
sions of its Employee Handbook
(i) The “Responsive Action” policy to the extent that it sub-
jects workers who non-maliciously provide false information
during workplace investigations to discipline and discharge.
(ii) The “Outside Employment and Business Activities” pol-
icy to the extent that it bans employees “from participating in
outside work activities that might present a conflict of interest.”
(iii) The “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee In-
formation” to the extent that it bans workers from supplying em-
ployee information to outside entities without authorization.
(iv) The “Company Property” policy to the extent that it bars
all unauthorized solicitation and other protected activity from its
facilities, and bans using email during non-working time for non-
business purposes.
(v) The “Use of Company Information Technology” policy to
the extent that it bans employees from using email and other in-
formation technology systems during non-working time for non-
business purposes.
(vi) The “Social Media” policy to the extent that it requires
employees to obtain consent prior to posting anything concern-
ing the company on social media.
(vii) The “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy to
the extent that it requires pre-approval before employees’ write
or speak publicly about their workplace.
(b) Furnish all current employees with inserts for the Em-
ployee Handbook that
(i) Advise that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or
(ii) Provide the language of lawful rules or publish and dis-
tribute a revised Employee Handbook that
(1) Does not contain the unlawful rules, or
(2) Provides the language of lawful rules.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at each
of its facilities in the United States, where its Employee Hand-
book is in effect, copies of the attached notice, marked “Appen-
dix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent's
18 Although counsel for the Acting General Counsel has requested a
notice reading remedy, such relief is unwarranted. Standard remedial
relief will adequately remedy the unfair labor practices at issue herein.
19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or-
der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK 11
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on
an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of busi-
ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, it shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
current employees and former employees employed it at any
time since December 23, 2015.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that it has
taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. November 8, 2019
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which subject workers who non-maliciously provide false
information during workplace investigations to potential disci-
pline and discharge.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which ban you “from participating in outside work activi-
ties that might present a conflict of interest.”
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which ban you from giving employee and workplace in-
formation to outside entities without authorization.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which bar all unauthorized solicitation and other protected
activity from our facilities, and ban using email and other infor-
mation technology during non-working time for non-business
purposes.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which ban you from using telephones and other communi-
cation systems during non-working time for non-business pur-
poses.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which require you to obtain our consent before posting
anything about us on social media or require you to permit us to
monitor your social media accounts.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Hand-
book, which require our pre-approval before you can write or
speak publicly about your workplace.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL rescind or modify the language in the following pro-
visions of our Employee Handbook:
1. The “Responsive Action” policy to the extent that it subjects
workers who non-maliciously provide false information during
workplace investigations to potential discipline and discharge.
2. The “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy
to the extent that it bans you “from participating in outside
work activities that might present a conflict of interest.”
3. The “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee Infor-
mation” to the extent that it bans you from supplying employee
information to outside entities without authorization.
4. The “Company Property” to the extent that it bars all unau-
thorized solicitation and other protected activity from our facil-
ities, and bans using email during non-working time for non-
business purposes.
5. The “Use of Company Information Technology” policy to
the extent that it bans employees from using email and other
information technology systems during non-working time for
non-business purposes.
6. The “Social Media” policy to the extent that it requires em-
ployees to obtain consent prior to posting anything concerning
us on social media and requires employees to permit monitor-
ing of their social media accounts.
7. The “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy to the
extent that it requires pre-approval before employees write or
speak publicly about their workplace.
WE WILL furnish all of you with inserts for the current Em-
ployee Handbook that:
1. Advise that the unlawful provisions, above have been re-
scinded, or
2. Provide the language of lawful provisions, or publish and
distribute revised Employee Handbooks that:
a. Do not contain the unlawful provisions, or
b. Provide the language of lawful provisions.
G&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-178893 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273‒1940.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12