Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

2019 NLRB LEXIS 554; 2019 L.R.R.M. 389213; 2018-19 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,597

2019 NLRB LEXIS 554; 2019 L.R.R.M. 389213; 2018-19 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,597

National Labor Relations Board

October 10, 2019

Case 32-CA-207919

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

On June 28, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.

I. BACKGROUND

The Respondent is a wholesale distributor of produce and other fine and specialty foods. Since at least 1998, the Respondent has maintained the LA & SF Specialty Employee Manual (the Manual), which contains the two rules at issue in this case, the Respondent's Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure rule (Confidentiality rule) and the Media Contact rule. The Confidentiality rule states, in its entirety, as follows:

Every employee is responsible for protecting any and all information that is used, acquired [*2]  or added to regarding matters that are confidential and proprietary of [Respondent] including but not limited to client/vendor lists, client/vendor information, accounting records, work product, production processes, business operations, computer software, computer technology, marketing and development operations, to name a few. Confidential information will also include information provided by a third party and governed by a non-disclosure agreement between [Respondent] and the third party. Access to confidential information should be disclosed on a "need-to-know" basis and must be authorized by management. Any breach to this policy will not be tolerated and will be subject to disciplinary and legal action.

(Emphasis added.) The complaint alleges that only the language in bold violates the Act.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 NLRB LEXIS 554 *; 2019 L.R.R.M. 389213; 2018-19 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,597

LA Specialty Produce Company and Teamsters Local 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Prior History:

LA Specialty Produce Co., 2018 NLRB LEXIS 253 (N.L.R.B., June 28, 2018)

Notice:

This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.

CORE TERMS

employees, Media, rights, Confidentiality, customer, vendor, lists, reasonable employee, work rule, approached, interfere, news media, speaking, slip opinion, Non-Disclosure, designated, balancing, employee rights, violating, colleague, chill, third party, reasonable interpretation, burden of proof, categorical, proprietary, Specialty, pricing, authorized person, second sentence