Some companies, like Guardsmark LLC, one of the nation’s largest security firms, want even more control. But last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled Guardsmark had gone too far in its rules stifling workers’ communication on—and off—the job.
 
The Guardsmark’s employee handbook states uniformed guards could be disciplined for “fraternizing” with co-workers on or off-duty. That restraint could cover everything from debating last night’s ballgame to talking about forming a union to bargain for a better life.
 
In 2005, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—dominated by Bush administration Republican appointees—said the ban on fraternizing was perfectly legal, and upheld two other restrictions on workers talking to each other and those outside the company’s chain of command about certain issues.
 
But the Appeals Court ruled the NLRB was wrong in upholding the restrictions and said the anti-fraternization rule violated long-standing labor law that protects certain worker activity—such as talking to each other about forming a union. Wrote Appeals Court Judge David Tatel: Indeed, in this sense of “fraternize” employees could hardly engage in protected activity without fraternizing with each other.
 
The court issued the decision just days before the Employee Free Choice Act was  introduced in the U.S. House of  Representatives. The act would restore workers’ freedom to form unions and help put a stop to the all-too routine employer intimidation, harassment, coercion and even the firing of workers trying to form a union. Click here to learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act.