News & Events

'Access' Was at the Heart of NLRB's Email Ruling

Submitted By Firm: Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C.

Contact(s): Abtin Mehdizadegan, J. Bruce Cross, Misty Wilson Borkowski


J. Bruce Cross and Anna Elento-Sneed

Date Published: 12/12/2014

Article Type:

Share This:

The National Labor Relations Board has revitalized itself in recent years by finding many workplace policies overbroad in violation of federal labor law. Policies governing topics such as social media, nondisparagement, workplace courtesy and confidentiality have all fallen under the NLRB's review. The NLRB's latest ruling in Purple Communications Inc. guarantees the agency will be kept very busy reviewing disputes over company email, at least until the new “rule” is fully defined or overturned.


In 2012, the NLRB issued a charge against Purple Communications, a deaf and hard-of-hearing communications technology company based out of California, alleging, among other things, that its company email policy was overbroad and unduly restrictive to its employees’ ability to discuss working conditions and terms of employment. The relevant email and other company communications policy facing the NLRB’s scrutiny in that case stated:

Computers, laptops, internet access, voicemail, electronic mail (email), Blackberry, cellular telephones and/or other Company equipment is provided and maintained by Purple to facilitate Company business. All information and messages stored, sent, and received on these systems are the sole and exclusive property of the Company, regardless of the author or recipient. All such equipment and access should be used for business purposes only.

The policy was challenged after an unsuccessful representation election was conducted by a local union. The NLRB's general counsel argued that the employer’s policy was overly broad because it prohibited the use of company email for “engaging in activities on behalf of organizations or persons with no professional or business affiliation with the company,” thus interfering with the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. The general counsel conceded that ruling in its favor would require overruling the NLRB’s previous holding in Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007). The administrative law judge assigned to the Purple Communications case held, “I am bound to follow Board precedent that has not been reversed by the Supreme Court.” The ALJ added that any decision to overrule binding precedent was for the NLRB to decide. The case was appealed.

The NLRB's Decision

On appeal, the NLRB's general counsel argued that Register-Guard should be overruled because it failed to appreciate the importance of electronic communications among employees in the modern workforce. The general counsel cited statistics showing that email communications are becoming the most prevalent method of communication and that it is only expected to grow in the near future. The general counsel also asserted that employers could still restrict employees’ use of company email systems by showing that, under a particularized showing, the employer’s interest in maintaining production and efficiency outweighs its employees’ Section 7 rights.

In response, Purple Communications and several amicus briefs argued just the opposite. First, the opposition contended that granting employees unrestricted access to company email accounts for nonworking purposes could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased spam and a heightened risk of viruses to email systems that could cause disruptions to workplace efficiency. Second, the opponents argued that in-person conversations among employees while at work (“water cooler discussions”) during nonworking time still protects Section 7 rights without those negative consequences. Moreover, if email communications are allowed to be sent to individuals or entities outside of the company, then there exists a risk of disclosure of confidential and proprietary information, whether intended or not, due to the fact that many employers would be required to adjust their firewalls and other security software to allow outside emails to be exchanged among their employees.

Third, Purple Communications and interested employers also argued that the increased use of personal communication devices with cellular and Internet capabilities, as well as the availability of free and publicly available email and social media accounts, provides employees’ with the opportunity to have any desired conversations while off work. Once again, employers contended that this protects Section 7 rights without infringing on employers’ property or increasing the risk of security breaches, lost productivity or email system failures. In light of these unintended consequences, Purple Communications and other interested parties contend that the current standard set forth in Register Guard is an appropriate rule with regard to access to and use of company email.

After addressing the arguments raised by employers and business groups, as well as extensive arguments raised by the dissenting board members Phil Miscimarra and Harry Johnson, the majority — Chairman Mark Pearce and board members Kent Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer — overturned Register Guard and issued their new Purple Communications rule based on previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793 (1945).

In other words, rather than analyzing the issue to be whether an employee has the right to use company equipment, the majority analyzed the case as an issue involving “access” to an employer’s premises and the right of employees to engage in Section 7 activities, on nonworking time, while on the employer’s premises. In short, the majority viewed the company email system as a virtual workplace and “fundamentally a forum for communication.” 

Accordingly, the majority has set out a new analytical framework for evaluating employees’ use of their employer’s email systems. Under this framework, employees who have been granted access to their company’s email systems must be allowed to use them to engage in protected Section 7 communications during nonworking time. The fact that employees may have alternative methods of communication available to them (e.g., face-to-face discussion, social media or personal email accounts) does not excuse the employer from allowing employees to use company email for protected Section 7 communications. The majority indicated that employers may apply uniform and consistently enforced controls over email systems “to the extent that those controls are necessary to maintain production and discipline,” and they also noted that there may be rare situations “where special circumstances justify a total ban on non-work email use by employees.”  However, the majority made it clear that such restrictions would have to be weighed against an employee’s right to engage in protected speech. Indeed, the NLRB pointed out that the “decision cannot resolve all the questions that will arise as a result of our recognizing the right of employees to use their employers’ email systems for protected communications on nonworking time, let alone as a result of the still more advanced electronic communications systems now in existence and yet to come.” In short, this is an area the NLRB will continue to wade through as the technology evolves.     

The NLRB did not decide the applicability of this standard to nonemployee third parties. That issue will likely be addressed at some point in the future.        

Potential Impact on Employers

Now that the NLRB has adopted its new Purple Communications rule compelling employers to allow employees to use company email for personal communications, the impact will be far-reaching. This is because email systems are not electronic “water coolers" as suggested by the general counsel, or some area in a virtual workplace where employees on nonworking time can engage in protected speech as envisioned by the majority. On the contrary, email systems are more like postal services that combine written communications with incredible storage capacity. With these systems, every email becomes a “document” that is instantly stored until someone purges it from the system’s electronic memory. The burdens of maintaining such a system for business use only are already considerable. Now that the NLRB is requiring employers to make email systems available to employees who use them for protected Section 7 speech, as well as general business purposes, the time and costs of doing so could be overwhelming. Consider the following issues:    

Storage Capacity

Although email systems have incredible storage capacity, that capacity is not unlimited. If employees are allowed to use company email systems for personal communications (without trying to weed out protected speech from unprotected speech), the “documents” retained on company systems could dramatically increase and exceed available storage capacity. When that happens, additional server space must be obtained or emails must be purged. Would employers be responsible for bearing the cost of storing personal emails and, if so, would the costs of maintaining personal emails have to be treated as taxable income to the employees (similar to personal use of company cars) since the emails are not business-related? Alternatively, if the decision is made to purge emails in order to make storage space available, would employers be held responsible for purging a personal document containing protected speech that the employee wanted retained? How does one distinguish protected and unprotected emails? Furthermore, how long must protected emails be retained? If an employer’s current practice is to purge cached emails after 30 days, must a six-month period be implemented to avoid a spoliation claim by a union, employee or the NLRB's general counsel?

In addition, most companies have spam-blocking software on their email systems to help protect their health. If the spam filter blocks an email due to a union flyer attachment, is this now an unfair labor practice?      

Monitoring of Computer Systems

Many employers have adopted policies prohibiting employees from misusing company computers (e.g., using company computers to engage in harassment, view pornography, run personal businesses or download pirated software). These policies often require information technology supervisors and staff to regularly monitor employee use and report any violations. Such routine monitoring could become problematic if the employer and employees are going through the union organizing process, collective bargaining or a grievance. Could monitoring of employee email or Internet usage in those situations be considered unlawful surveillance? In addition to claims under federal labor law, could monitoring of personal email also lead to common law claims for invasion of privacy?

Litigation and E-Discovery

The burdens of maintaining email and other electronic records are considerable, particularly when records are pertinent to litigation. As federal courts have discovered in the past few years, sorting through electronic document production, metadata, document retention and spoliation issues can be a nightmare. This nightmare will surely be visited upon the NLRB, employers, unions and employees if email and other electronic records become relevant in grievances, arbitrations, board actions and appeals to federal courts. Who will bear the costs of looking through terabytes or petabytes of information to find the relevant emails? And what happens if the dispute is not between the employer and the employee, but is between the employee and a third party? Can the employee be required to reimburse his/her employer for the cost of producing the employee’s personal email for use in a nonwork-related litigation?  

These issues, and many others, will have to be addressed in the coming months … or years. Otherwise, employers will be left to make these decisions, likely on an ad hoc basis, with no guidance from any federal authorities. Whether the NLRB is prepared to address these issues is another question.

[Originally published on Law360, Dec. 12, 2013. Posted with permission]

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel