Give a Hoot For Worker Rights
A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case involving an employee of a Hooters franchise being terminated for complaining about an unfair bikini competition termination provides a nice demonstration of how the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) benefits even non-union employees.
The NLRA protects the right of many employees to engage in certain activity for the mutual aid and protection of coworkers. This is known as "concerted protected activity." While many people associate union activity with strikes, picketing, and public demonstrations, the NLRA's protection of concerted protected activity extends to more mundane, but equally important, activities. The NLRA protects (many) employees who compare pay and benefits with co-workers, present shared complaints to supervisors, and complain with other workers on Facebook and other social media sites. These protections apply even when no union exists, no worker is trying to form a union, and when no one knows that they exercising rights protected under federal law. It even protects when Hooters waitresses complain about exploitation and what they perceive to be a rigged bikini contest.
In Hoot Winc, LLC, issued last week, an administrative law judge of the NLRB determined that a Hooters franchise illegally terminated an employee for making such complaints with and on behalf of co-workers. Employee Alexis Hanson was a "Hooters Girl" who worked for $8.25 an hour plus tips. Hanson observed that a marketing coordinator for the company had won a series of employee bikini contests and that a best friend of the manager was a judge at the contests. She and a colleague complained about inappropriate comments that managers made about fellow waitresses during a meeting. She and several other employees also raised their concerns that a certain manager misused her authority to win bikini contests. Hanson further complained that she and others were being forced to participate in an unfair bikini competition without any compensation. The company terminated Hanson soon thereafter.
The company denied that it terminated Hanson for conveying complaints shared by her co-workers. The company alleged that she was terminated for cursing at the manager alleged to have rigged the competitions. But the judge found that Hanson did not, in fact, swear at the coworker. And this reason was at odds with the multiple vague reasons provided at the time of Hanson's termination. Because the ALJ rejected the company's explanation, he found that the Company lacked a legitimate business reason unrelated to Hanson's protected activity.
The judge ordered the Company to reinstate Hanson and make her whole for all benefits and wages she lost as a result of the termination. The judge also directed the company to revise multiple broad policies in its handbook for unfairly restricting the rights of employees to engage in protected concerted activity. The employer can appeal the ALJ's decision to the National Labor Relations Board.
