In a new memorandum, the General Counsel of the
The issue arose when a regional office asked for input on three provisions of an employment agreement, including a "Duties of Employees" provision which read:
"Except as hereinafter provided, the Employee shall at all times during the continuance of this Agreement devote her full time to the conduct of the business of the Employer and shall not directly or indirectly, during the term of this Agreement engage in any activity competitive with or adverse to the Corporation's business or welfare whether alone, or as a partner, officer, director, Employee, advisor, agent or investor of any other individual corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, entity or person."
The provision was unlawfully overbroad pursuant to
In
"If an employee, who is understood to be economically dependent on the employer and who contemplates Section 7 activity, could reasonably interpret the rule to be coercive, the General Counsel has carried their burden and the rule is presumptively unlawful even if there is also a reasonable non-coercive interpretation," the GC wrote.
An employee could reasonably read the provision as preventing him or her from engaging in outside employment while employed by the employer because of the restriction on being an "employee" of another entity.
"The General Counsel takes the position that rules or contract provisions directly or indirectly prohibiting moonlighting are generally unlawful, and the Board has expressed an intent to revisit extant law concerning an employer's maintenance of moonlighting restrictions," the GC wrote. "Thus, rules or contract provisions that broadly prohibit outside employment implicitly prohibit, among other things, working as a paid union salt."
In the case discussed, because the employer did not seek to enforce this provision of the employment agreement, the employee's charge did not properly allege a violation based on the Duties of Employees provision.
However, the memo noted that the employer admitted that the provision was in effect for several other current employees, "underscoring the appropriateness of applying
To read the GC's memo, click here.
Why it matters
Employers should pay attention to the GC's position that rules or provisions directly or indirectly prohibiting moonlighting are generally unlawful, and the warning that the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
CA 90064
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source