Executive Summary: On
Facts
Tesla's dress code required certain employees to wear black shirts with Tesla's logo. Although these employees were not allowed to wear black union shirts in lieu of the required uniform, the employees were allowed to wear union stickers on their uniforms. Tesla supported this dress code on two grounds. First, as these employees helped assemble electric vehicles, Tesla maintained that the uniforms would lower the risk of employees' clothing causing damage to the vehicles. Second, Tesla claimed that the required uniforms assisted in the visual management of the workplace by allowing managers to easily determine that employees were in their assigned work areas and to help distinguish among the different types of employees based on their shirt color.
Previous Decisions on Displaying Union Insignia Analyzed in Tesla
In analyzing the lawfulness of Tesla's dress code, which restricted the display of union insignia by requiring employees to wear specific shirts, thereby implicitly precluding employees from wearing union shirts, the Board focused on three previous decisions involving union insignia. First, the Board addressed the 1945 decision by the
Second, the Board looked to its 2010 decision in
Third, the Board reviewed its 2019 decision that applied a more employer-friendly standard than the "special circumstances" test when addressing an employer's facially neutral policy that limited the size and appearance of union insignia on employee clothing but did not prohibit it.
The Board's Decision in Tesla
The Board recognized that Tesla's policy that implicitly prohibited employees from wearing union shirts in place of the required shirts interfered with employees' protected right to display union insignia. Thus, the Board found that, under
When applying the "special circumstances" requirement to Tesla's dress code, the Board found that Tesla failed to establish that either of its justifications for its dress code warranted its implicit prohibition on employees wearing union shirts. First, Tesla introduced insufficient evidence to show that union shirts posed a risk of damage to the vehicles. Second, there was no evidence that the black shirts required under the dress code helped Tesla to maintain visual management in the workplace any more so than black union shirts. Thus, the Board concluded that Tesla's dress code violated the NLRA.
In reaching its decision to apply the "special circumstances" test in Tesla, the
Second, the Board overruled its 2019 decision that distinguished between workplace rules that completely prohibit the display of union insignia and rules that only partially restrict the display of union insignia. In the 2019 case, the
Employers' Bottom Line
The Board's decision in Tesla makes it clear that the Board will not distinguish between workplace rules that completely prohibit the display of union insignia and rules such as Tesla's that merely partially restrict the display of union insignia. Thus, an employer's dress code that requires its employees to wear uniforms, which implicitly prohibits employees from wearing union clothes, but allows for employees to wear other union insignia such as pins, buttons, and stickers on their uniforms, will be subject to the same lawfulness standard as outright bans on wearing union insignia. In each instance, the employer will be required to justify its dress code by special circumstances. Thus, employers should ensure that any dress codes that are currently in effect and any dress codes that employers may consider issuing satisfy the "special circumstances" requirement. The determination of whether special circumstances exist to support the employer's policy is based upon the specific circumstances existing in the employer's workplace.
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.
Suite 1900
30363
Tel: 404888 3800
Fax: 404888 3863
E-mail: mtilley@fordharrison.com
URL: www.fordharrison.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source