Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Winston Kirton Participates in Panel on Health Equity at 2024 HBA Annual Conference

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs – DeWayne Griffin

Blockchain Monitor

Weekly Blockchain Blog – September 16, 2024

Ohio Clock

Hallway with a grandfather clock displayed

The Weekly Hill Update

<h5>Key Takeaways</h5>  <ul> 	<li>On October 31, 2022, the National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum for employers that sets out to restrict the “omnipresent surveillance” of employees in the advent of work at home culture. </li> 	<li>Ms. Abruzzo specifically identifies GPS tracking, video surveillance, and key loggers as potential concerns. </li> 	<li>Employers must always be careful when engaging in employee surveillance and the NLRB’s memo gives employers yet more reason to be careful. </li> </ul>  On October 31, 2022, the National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo issued a potentially spooky memorandum for employers regarding electronic surveillance and automated management. The memo sets out to restrict the “omnipresent surveillance” of employees in the advent of work at home culture. Ms. Abruzzo specifically identifies GPS tracking, video surveillance, and key loggers as potential concerns. The memo also equates automated managing software and artificial intelligence (“AI”) to “surveillance” software.  Ms. Abruzzo identified these surveillance technologies as potentially interfering with employee’s Section 7 rights. Section 7 states that employees have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. An employer may impede on those rights when it uses technology to surveil such activities. Ms. Abruzzo’s memo stands as a warning as how technology may impede on these rights even if no intent to do so is present.  In addition, the memo notes that key logging and other automated management software is a potential concern. All employers, particularly with remote employees and employees who travel for work, have an interest in ensuring that their employees are actually working. This is particularly relevant in the work from home culture world where managers are not physically present to ensure employees are working when they say they are. The memo, however, warns about using this software so strictly. The NLRB cautions that this software cannot set such a “breakneck pace” that an employee is “severely limit[ed] or completely prevent[ed]” from engaging in protected activities. Of course, the memo does not specify what such a “breakneck pace” would be. “Constant surveillance” may be considered a problem, as well, because employees may not engage in protected activities if always being watched.  The NLRB also found that off the clock surveillance can create Section 7 issues. Ms. Abruzzo noted that work issued phones and wearable devices have been used to track employees after hours, and that employees have been required to download apps on their own phones which track their after-work activities. All of these could cause potential Section 7 issues in the NLRB’s view. The NLRB troublingly did not identify “intent” as a significant factor for whether Section 7 is violated in this context or not. An employer thus potentially could have passive tracking on a work-issued phone or device only to find that this violates Section 7 under the NLRB’s view.  Finally, the NLRB also discussed AI and the role it may play in employee surveillance. While an employer may think that an AI cannot be found to target employees based on Section 7 rights, the NLRB disagrees. The Board has determined that if an AI targets an employee’s Section 7 rights the employer may be liable. Again, intent is not a factor, merely the outcome. From the NLRB’s perspective, “if employers rely on artificial intelligence to screen job applicants or issue discipline, the employer—as well as a third-party software provider—may violate Section 8(a)(3) if the underlying algorithm is making decisions based on employees’ protected activity.” In short, employers should work with counsel before relying on such a system.  Employers must always be careful when engaging in employee surveillance and the NLRB’s memo gives employers yet more reason to be careful. Employers should always engage with counsel before enacting any company-wide surveillance policies to ensure it does not run afoul of Section 7 or the myriad of other legislation in this area, in addition to common law claims.

core/freeform

Cincinnati

Partner

M. Scott McIntyre

Associate

Sean P. Ryan

Labor and Employment

Employee Privacy

You are Being Monitored for Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices, Says the NLRB

Related Services

Featured Insights