Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Investigators Beware: NLRB Case Reminds Employers Not To Require Confidentiality

By Gary S. Starr & Christopher Engler on February 15, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The headlines seem to be filled with stories of workplace harassment.  Employers are feeling pressure to respond quickly and appropriately to complaints of harassment.  How that is done is important as the investigation can cause a myriad of unanticipated legal problems.  A new decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reminds us that the goal of effectively investigating harassment is not unrestricted.

A Costco employee was accused of making “racially charged and discriminatory comments” to a coworker during an argument at work.  When the store manager questioned the employee during his investigation, the manager ended by telling the employee not to discuss the incident with anyone else.  The employee was fired and filed a charge at the NLRB.  Neither the employee nor his union objected to the manager’s instruction.  Nevertheless, the NLRB concluded that the manager’s single sentence violated the National Labor Relations Act because it would “reasonably tend to chill employees” in their exercise of their rights to discuss the terms and conditions of employment with others.

This legal principle is not new, although it is still often misunderstood.  The NLRB first condemned an employer’s practice of instructing employees not to discuss ongoing investigations in its 2015 Banner Health Systems decision.  Such an instruction is only appropriate where there is a particular and substantial need for confidentiality, such as a risk of evidence being destroyed or witnesses being coerced.  Costco provided no evidence to support such a need.

While there may often be good reasons for wanting to maintain confidentiality, especially when the investigation involves a sensitive topic such as sexual harassment or assault, employers need to evaluate if each particular investigation requires a confidentiality instruction.  Such a directive must be defensible.  Even before interviewing witnesses, an assessment must be made as to whether there is a risk that evidence will be destroyed, witnesses will collude, and/or witnesses will be coerced.

There has been some speculation that the Banner Health Systems decision will be overturned by the new NLRB, as a number of its members have changed under the current presidential administration.  Until that happens, employers should be careful when conducting investigations.

Photo of Gary S. Starr Gary S. Starr

Gary Starr provides practical advice to a wide range of clients in the private and public sector, bringing over 30 years of experience to counseling clients in traditional labor relations matters as well as human relations problems. His experience helps clients avoid the…

Gary Starr provides practical advice to a wide range of clients in the private and public sector, bringing over 30 years of experience to counseling clients in traditional labor relations matters as well as human relations problems. His experience helps clients avoid the “big mistakes” as well as the day-to-day hassles. Gary also defends employers in state and federal courts, regularly appearing before judges, juries, and administrative agencies. He provides strategic and creative approaches to difficult employee issues, seeking practical solutions and aggressively litigating where and when necessary.

Read more about Gary S. StarrEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Christopher Engler Christopher Engler

Chris Engler focuses his practice on the area of labor and employment law. He has assisted both public and private sector clients in a range of legal matters, running the gamut from grievance arbitrations before the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration and…

Chris Engler focuses his practice on the area of labor and employment law. He has assisted both public and private sector clients in a range of legal matters, running the gamut from grievance arbitrations before the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration and prohibited practice proceedings before the State Board of Labor Relations, to claims of employment discrimination and retaliation before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

Read more about Christopher EnglerEmailChristopher's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Letter
  • Organization:
    Shipman & Goodwin LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo