Can we prohibit employees from making audio recordings at work?  As advancements in technology continue to increase, and it becomes easier and easier for employees to surreptitiously record conversations, this inquiry is posed by many employers.  In fact, we discussed this very question back in 2013.  Unfortunately, the answer to this question is perhaps the most often used attorney response  – “Maybe.”  This is especially true given the recent decision from the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) in Whole Foods Market, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 919 and Workers Organizing Committee of Chicago.  For employers, or those looking to prohibit the use of recording devices, the NLRB’s decision, issued on December 24, 2015, is more akin to coal than an early Christmas present. 

This matter was before the NLRB after the NLRB’s General Counsel filed exceptions to the decision of Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis.  That decision, issued on October 30, 2013, was previously discussed by our labor colleagues.  In his decision, ALJ Davis found that the company’s nationwide policy banning employee recording of workplace “conversations” was lawful.  The policy’s stated purpose was “to eliminate a chilling effect… when one person is concerned that his or her conversation with another is being secretly recorded.”  The prohibition otherwise complements the company’s well-established and pro-active open-door policy.  The ALJ found the company has a legitimate business interest in promoting a culture encouraging employees to “speak up and speak out.”

In his exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, the NLRB’s General Counsel asserted that recording conversations in the workplace is a protected right and that employees would reasonably interpret the rules to prohibit their use of cameras or recording devices in the workplace for employees’ mutual aid and protection.

The NLRB found, contrary to the ALJ, that the rules at issue would reasonably be construed by employees to prohibit Section 7 activity.  The NLRB went on to say that photography and audio or video recording in the workplace are protected by Section 7 if employees are acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection and no overriding employer interest is present.  Specifically, the NLRB stated that such protected conduct may include, for example, recording images of protected picketing, documenting unsafe workplace equipment or hazardous working conditions, documenting or publicizing discussions about terms and conditions of employment, documenting inconsistent application of employer rules, or recording evidence to preserve it for later use in administrative or judicial forums in employment-related actions.

Importantly, the decision does state that the NLRB is not making any findings as to whether particular recordings are concerted and is also not finding that recording necessarily constitutes concerted activity.  Similarly, the NLRB stated they are not holding that all rules regulating recording are invalid.  Rather, the NLRB clarified they only found that recording may, under certain circumstances, constitute protected concerted activity under Section 7 (the dreaded “Maybe”) and that the rules at issue in this matter would reasonably be read by employees to prohibit protected concerted recording violate the National Labor Relations Act.

While mentioned in a footnote to the decision, it is important to note that some states (generally in statutes addressing wiretapping) require all parties to a conversation to consent before that conversation may be recorded.  To overcome these statutory prohibitions on surreptitious recording, the NLRB focused on the broad application of these recording rules to all jurisdictions where the Respondent has locations.  It is unclear whether the NLRB’s decision would have been different if the rules were limited to those states where nonconsensual recording is unlawful.

This decision, along with others by the NLRB and state and federal courts, highlights the difficulties employers face when attempting to prohibit recording or the use of recording devices.  As such, employers interested in implementing workplace rules or policies regarding recording are urged to consider existing legal precedent on this issue, set forth specific legitimate business interests for the prohibition, and consult with counsel before development and implementation.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jason C. Gavejian Jason C. Gavejian

Jason C. Gavejian is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group. Jason is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy…

Jason C. Gavejian is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group. Jason is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

As a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), Jason focuses on the matrix of laws governing privacy, security, and management of data. Jason is co-editor of, and a regular contributor to, the firm’s Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report blog.

Jason’s work in the area of privacy and data security includes counseling international, national, and regional companies on the vast array of privacy and security mandates, preventive measures, policies, procedures, and best practices. This includes, but is not limited to, the privacy and security requirements under state, federal, and international law (e.g., HIPAA/HITECH, GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), FTC Act, ECPA, SCA, GLBA etc.). Jason helps companies in all industries to assess information risk and security as part of the development and implementation of comprehensive data security safeguards including written information security programs (WISP). Additionally, Jason assists companies in analyzing issues related to: electronic communications, social media, electronic signatures (ESIGN/UETA), monitoring and recording (GPS, video, audio, etc.), biometrics, and bring your own device (BYOD) and company owned personally enabled device (COPE) programs, including policies and procedures to address same. He regularly advises clients on compliance issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and has represented clients in suits, including class actions, brought in various jurisdictions throughout the country under the TCPA.

Jason represents companies with respect to inquiries from the HHS/OCR, state attorneys general, and other agencies alleging wrongful disclosure of personal/protected information. He negotiates vendor agreements and other data privacy and security agreements, including business associate agreements. His work in the area of privacy and data security includes counseling and coaching clients through the process of investigating and responding to breaches of the personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI) they maintain about consumers, customers, employees, patients, and others, while also assisting clients in implementing policies, practices, and procedures to prevent future data incidents.

Jason represents management exclusively in all aspects of employment litigation, including restrictive covenants, class-actions, harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and wage and hour claims in both federal and state courts. He regularly appears before administrative agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, and the New Jersey Department of Labor. Jason’s practice also focuses on advising/counseling employers regarding daily workplace issues.

Jason’s litigation experience, coupled with his privacy practice, provides him with a unique view of many workplace issues and the impact privacy, data security, and social media may play in actual or threatened lawsuits.

Jason regularly provides training to both executives and employees and regularly speaks on current privacy, data security, monitoring, recording, BYOD/COPE, biometrics (BIPA), social media, TCPA, and information management issues. His views on these topics have been discussed in multiple publications, including the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle (SFGATE), National Law Review, Bloomberg BNA,, @Law Magazine, Risk and Insurance Magazine, LXBN TV, Business Insurance Magazine, and

Jason is the co-leader of Jackson Lewis’ Hispanic Attorney resource group, a group committed to increasing the firm’s visibility among Hispanic-American and other minority attorneys, as well as mentoring the firm’s attorneys to assist in their training and development. He also previously served on the National Leadership Committee of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) and regularly volunteers his time for pro bono matters.

Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, Jason served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Richard J. Donohue on the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.