G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 8, 2019

28-CA-178893 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 8, 2019)

JD–84–19
Tucson, AZ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
G&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK
GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK
and Case 28–CA–178893
PATRICK THURMAN, an Individual
Nestor M. Zarate-Mancilla, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Derek Barella, Esq. (Winston & Strawn, LLP),
for the Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Statement of the Case
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. The Board remanded this case
under Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) to evaluate whether G&E Real Estate
Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank (G&E or the Respondent)
maintained unlawful Employee Handbook rules. Thereafter, the General Counsel (the GC)
filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, which condensed the complaint to 11 rules allegations.
As will be explained, 4 of these rules are valid, while 7 have been found to be unlawful.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In Boeing, regarding facially neutral rules akin to those at issue herein, the Board held:
In cases [where] … facially neutral … rules …, when reasonably interpreted,
would potentially interfere with §7 rights, the Board will evaluate …: (i) the …
extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications

1 G&E sought judicial notice of the administrative records in BGC Partners, Inc., Case 28–CA–
195500 and Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Case 28–CA–195506 in lieu of reopening the record for additional
evidence. This request was granted. The parties filed briefs on May 31, 2019.
JD–84–19
2
…. [and] … strike the proper balance between . . . asserted business
justifications and the invasion of employee rights ….
[T]he Board … [listed] three [rules] categories ….:
5
 Category 1 … rules [are] lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule,
when reasonably interpreted, does not … interfere with the exercise of
NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact … is outweighed by
justifications … [for] the rule. Examples … are the no-camera
requirement in this case, the “harmonious interactions and relationships” 10
rule … at issue in William Beaumont Hospital, and other rules requiring
… basic standards of civility ….
 Category 2 … rules … warrant individualized scrutiny … as to whether
the rule, when reasonably interpreted, would prohibit or interfere with 15
the exercise of NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on
NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
 Category 3 … rules … [are] unlawful to maintain because they would
prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on 20
NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.
An example would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing
wages or benefits with one another.
Id. at 15–16 (footnotes omitted, and emphasis added). 25
II. RESPONSIVE ACTION POLICY2
This Category 2 rule fails the Boeing balancing test. It states that:
30
If, after investigating a complaint (including a complaint of harassment,
discrimination or retaliation), the Company determines … that persons involved
in the investigation provided false information, the individual(s) who made the
false allegations or gave the false information may be subject to appropriate
discipline, up to and including termination …. 35
(GC Exh. 2 at §206).
Concerning §7 rights, this rule would reasonably deter workers from aiding
investigations involving collective issues out of fear that their innocent factual errors might lead 40
to discipline. Employees may also refrain from concerted speech aimed at improving their
workplace due to the same concerns. This rule, notably, does not distinguish between
blameless, non-negligent factual errors and intentional defamation, which would strike a more
reasonable balance.
45

2 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(2) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
3
Concerning G&E’s interests, it holds a valid interest in reliably investigating workplace
complaints. It also maintains a stake in discouraging employee dishonesty.
Boeing’s balancing test tips against G&E. This rule, which covers all falsehoods (i.e.,
as opposed to only defamation), is a Category 2 rule that, when reasonably interpreted, bars 5
innocent employee errors on collective matters. This is a significant infringement, which
undercuts collective speech during workplace investigations. This interference is not
outweighed by G&E’s interests, which might still be reasonably advanced by limiting the rule’s
scope to defamatory speech.3 This rule is, accordingly, invalid; simply put, it fails to strike the
proper balance between §7 rights and business interests. 10
III. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES POLICY4
This Category 2 rule similarly fails the Boeing balancing test. It provides that:
15
[E]mployees are prohibited - without … approval … from participating in
outside work activities that might present a conflict of interest ….
(GC Exh. 2 at §303) (emphasis added).
20
Concerning §7 rights, this rule could reasonably be construed by employees to ban
organizing G&E’s workers, making connected home visits to such coworkers, or acting as a
union salt without approval. Its impact on core §7 activities is, thus, substantial.
Regarding G&E, it has a valid interest in avoiding conflicts and promoting loyalty. Such 25
breaches may offend a client, harm a business relationship or undercut workplace harmony.
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. Employees can reasonably construe this
rule as a complete ban against organizing coworkers and engaging in other §7 activities without
approval. G&E can address this infringement, while simultaneously safeguarding its valid 30
interest in avoiding conflicts, by, for example, excluding union and other N.L.R.A. activities
from the rule’s scope.5 I find, as a result, that the §7 interests at stake outweigh G&E’s
legitimate business interests, and the rule is unlawful.
IV. REFERENCE INQUIRIES AND REQUESTS FOR EMPLOYEE INFORMATION POLICY635
This policy is an invalid Boeing Category 3 rule. It states as follows:

3 G&E has neither explained why it did not limit the rule in this way nor has it clarified why
disciplining employees, who make innocent factual errors during workplace investigations, advances its
valid business interests.
4 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(4) and 5 of the complaint.
5 G&E has neither explained why it did not limit the rule in this way nor has it clarified why
disciplining employees, who engage in outside union activities without approval, advances its valid
business interests.
6 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(5) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
4
All requests for information regarding a[n] … employee must be forwarded to
the Human Resources Department for response. Should an employee … receive
a … request for a reference, the employee should direct the individual seeking
information … to the Human Resources Department ….
5
No Company employee may … supply employee information … without …
permission ….
(GC Exh. 2 at §403) (emphasis added).
10
Concerning §7 rights, this rule could reasonably be construed to bar wage or related
discussions. This is a great intrusion on the right to share such data for collective purposes.
Regarding G&E, it has a valid stake in handling reference requests consistently. It also
has an interest in sharing employment data in a centralized manner. 15
This policy is an invalid Boeing Category 3 rule. It deeply impacts §7 activities and can
be reasonably construed to bar wage and related discussions without consent. G&E can address
its valid concerns regarding references and employee data releases by simply deleting the rule’s
second paragraph (i.e., “No Company employee may … supply employee information … 20
without … permission.”). It has offered no explanation for this omission, which would present
a reasonable balancing of collective and business interests. In sum, this rule limits protected
conduct and the adverse impact on such rights is not outweighed by G&E’s justifications.
Boeing, supra (“rule[s] that prohibit … employees from discussing wages or benefits with one
another” are invalid under Category 3.).25
V. COMPANY PROPERTY POLICY7
This rule is not covered by Boeing. It is unlawful under extant Board law. It states:
30
Offices, cubicles, desks, computers, file cabinets, lockers, and vehicles are
Company property and must be maintained according to Company rules and
regulations. All Company property must be used solely for the Company's
benefit and business purposes, and not for the employee's … personal benefit
(or the benefit of any other person or entity). The Company's property includes 35
its … premises, equipment … and supplies, as well as proprietary information
and intellectual property (e.g., … non-public information, … customer, vendor
and employee lists, confidential information and materials) ….
(GC Exh. 2 at §703). 40
This policy, which bans non-business usage of G&E’s facilities and equipment, is
unlawful. It can be reasonably construed by employees to bar all unauthorized solicitation and
other protected activity during non-working hours at G&E’s facility remises, as well as prohibit
employees from using G&E’s email systems during their non-working time for §7 activities. 45

7 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(7) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
5
See, e.g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945); Purple Communications, 361
NLRB 1050,1066(2014) (“right of employees to use their employers' email systems for
protected communications on nonworking time”); Stoddard-Quirk, 138 NLRB 615 (1962)
(prohibition on unauthorized distribution of literature on company premises is unlawful).8
5
VI. USE OF COMPANY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY9
This rule is not covered by Boeing. It is also unlawful under extant Board law. It
states:
10
Computers, electronic communication, electronic information and other
technology … support the Company's business. The Company provides many
of its employees with access to telecommunication and electronic
communication means and computer systems owned or operated by the
Company ….15
It is the responsibility of each employee … to ensure that this technology and all
Information Systems are used for proper business purposes ….
Users should not use or access Company Information Systems in any manner 20
that is unlawful, inappropriate, or contrary to the Company's best interests ….
Users may only use Company Information Systems in a manner that is consistent
with the Company's policies and procedures ….
[V]oice mail and … e-mail … are to be used for business purposes only.25
(GC Exh. 2 at §707). This policy, which bans the non-business usage of information technology
(IT) equipment, is overbroad and unlawful, inasmuch as it bans employees from using email
and IT systems during non-working time for §7 activities. Purple Communications, supra.
30
VII. TAPE RECORDING POLICY10
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It states that:
[I]t is a violation of Company policy for an employee … to record conversations 35
at or related to their work or services at the Company with a tape recorder,
mobile device or any other recording device or to make a video recording in a
work-related setting unless (1) prior approval has been granted by the
Company…, or (2) use of the device has been otherwise properly authorized in
connection with the employee's … performance of his … assigned duties …. 40
Violation of this policy will result in … disciplinary action, up to and including
immediate termination of employment ….

8 Boeing did not overrule Purple Communications.
9 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(9) and 5 of the complaint.
10 his allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(10) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
6
(GC Exh. 2 at §708).
This facially-neutral policy requires a balancing test, which tips in favor of G&E. On
the one hand, this rule overbroadly encompasses recordings made for one’s mutual aid and 5
protection. G&E, however, has a keen interest in the maintenance of this rule, which controls
unauthorized recordings of its business operations. This rule is analogous to the Boeing no-
camera rule, which was classified as a valid Category 1 policy. Boeing, supra.
VIII. SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY1110
This policy is an unlawful Boeing Category 2 rule. It states as follows:
The Company recognizes the importance of social media …. [O]nly those types
of social media that have been approved by the Company… are permitted. As 15
a general matter, use of social media that provides for communication that the,
Company cannot capture and/or monitor (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat,
Instagram and similar apps …) is prohibited….
Where certain postings are permitted, the policy is intended to ensure that any 20
social media activities affiliated with the Company and its affiliate offices are
used appropriately, furnish accurate information, and are in compliance with the
Company's established policies and procedures ….
(GC Exh. 2 at §802). 25
Concerning §7 rights, employees could reasonably construe this rule to bar social media
usage that G&E cannot monitor as well as online commentary that is not pre-approved. This
effectively bars workers discussing their wages and collective concerns on social media, which
is a substantial §7 infringement. Regarding G&E, it has a valid interest in maintaining a positive 30
online presence and controlling online commentary made by its agents.
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. Employees can reasonably construe this
rule as a blanket prohibition against engaging in unapproved §7 activities on social media. G&E
can adeptly address this substantial infringement, while simultaneously safeguarding its valid 35
interests in maintaining a positive online image, by limiting the rule to state, inter alia, that,
“employees cannot act as a spokesperson for G&E on social media without authorization.” This
narrowing would create a fairer balance and produce a valid Category 1 rule, which allows for
social media discussions of workplace issues by non-spokespersons, while protecting G&E’s
online image. G&E offered no explanation for this omission. This rule is, accordingly, invalid. 40
IX. OUTSIDE SPEAKING AND WRITING ACTIVITIES POLICY12
This policy is an unlawful Boeing Category 2 rule. It states that:

11 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(12) and 5 of the complaint.
12 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(13) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
7
Prior Company approval must be obtained for participation in any outside
writing/publishing activities, speaking engagements relating to the Company …
and engaging in other similar activities….
5
(GC Exh. 2 at §803).
The Boeing balancing test tips against G&E. The impact on §7 rights is substantial.
The rule is not limited to controlling those employees who take an unauthorized public stance
on behalf of G&E. Moreover, it overbroadly requires all employees to obtain approval for any 10
discourse “relating to the company,” which can be reasonably construed to bar them from
speaking at union meetings about “the company.” G&E could validly narrow the rule to state,
inter alia, that, “employees cannot serve as a spokesperson for the company without
authorization.” This narrowing would fairly advance its interests, create a valid Category 1
rule, and no longer leave workers unable to discuss their workplace as non-spokespersons15
without approval. G&E has, again, offered no explanation for this omission. This rule is, thus,
invalid.
X. COOPERATION IN INVESTIGATIONS AND LITIGATION POLICY13
20
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It provides that:
Employees … are required to cooperate with … internal investigations and the
defense or prosecution of claims …. by providing truthful information or
testimony in interviews, meetings or proceedings …. In the event the 25
investigation or claim involves allegations made by the employee … against the
Company, the employee … will be required to provide information that the
Company views as necessary to its internal investigation … but will not be
required to provide assistance to … its defense or prosecution of the claim.
30
(GC Exh. 2 at §804).
The Boeing balancing test tips in favor of G&E. Employees would not reasonably read
this rule to require participation in a ULP investigation, which infringes upon their §7 right to
refuse to cooperate in a ULP investigation. This rule is silent on ULP investigations and, absent 35
some context referencing such investigations, employees would reasonably interpret this rule
to only apply to general investigations of workplace misconduct. Thus, given G&E’s keen
interest in fairly investigating workplace misconduct and the rule’s silence on ULPs, the
potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by G&E’s interests.
40
XI. PERSONAL APPEARANCE POLICY14
This policy, which bans, “clothing with printed slogans/promotions,” is a valid Boeing
Category 1 rule. (GC Exh. 2 at §811). It is improbable that employees would reasonably

13 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(15) and 5 of the complaint.
14 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(17) and 5 of the complaint.
JD–84–19
8
understand this rule, when viewed in its entirety, to bar union insignia. The portion of the rule
at issue is a single bullet-point contained in a lengthy dress code rule. Given that the §7 impact
is minor and G&E has a valid interest in a dress code, this rule survives the Boeing balancing
text.
5
XII. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT POLICY15
This policy is a valid Boeing Category 1 rule. It provides that:
We require and expect our employees and contractors […] to exhibit and act 10
with common courtesy, decency, dignity and respect, and to exercise sound
business judgment. This not only involves sincere respect for the rights and
feelings of others but also demands that employees and contractors refrain from
any behavior that might be harmful to themselves, their coworkers and
colleagues, and/or the Company or that might be viewed unfavorably by current 15
or potential customers, the industry or the public at large ….
Listed below are some examples of conduct that is unacceptable. Some of these
examples are relevant to both employees and contractors; others (primarily those
related to hours and location of work, time records, and work supervision) are 20
not applicable to contractors.
This list should not be viewed as being all-inclusive, as it is not possible to list
all forms of behavior that are considered unacceptable. Unacceptable conduct
may result in immediate disciplinary action, including warnings, suspensions or 25
termination of employment, or corrective action, including notice of violation,
termination of employment or suspension of services. […]
Examples of conduct likely to lead to disciplinary or corrective action include:
30
 Any conduct that could be construed as harming the operations or
reputation of the Company ….
(GC Exh. 2 at §813) (emphasis added).
35
The Boeing balancing test tips in favor of G&E. This rule is essentially a civility rule,
which was found valid in Boeing. Id. (finding that employers may maintain rules requiring
“harmonious relationships” in the workplace and can require basic standards of “civility.”).
G&E has a strong stake in workplace civility, which deters unlawful harassment, prevents
violence, limits conflict and promotes productivity. Such interests outweigh the somewhat light 40
impact on §7 rights. This rule is, therefore, a lawful Category 1 rule.16

15 This allegation appears under ¶¶4(a)(18) and 5 of the complaint.
16 The Boeing Board noted that any adverse effect on §7 rights was comparatively slight since a
broad range of activities protected by the NLRA are consistent with basic standards of harmony and
civility. Boeing, supra.
JD–84–19
9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. G&E is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of §2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
5
2. G&E violated §8(a)(1) by maintaining these Employee Handbook policies:
a. “Responsive Action” policy, which subjects workers who non-
maliciously provide false information during investigations to potential discipline and
discharge. 10
b. “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy, which bans
employees “from participating in outside work activities that might present a conflict of
interest.”
15
c. “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee Information” policy,
which bans workers from supplying employee information to outside entities without
authorization.
d. “Company Property” policy, which bars all unauthorized solicitation and 20
other protected activity from G&E’s facilities, and bans using email during non-working time
for non-business purposes.
e. “Use of Company Information Technology” policy, which bans
employees from using email and other information technology systems during non-working 25
time for non-business purposes.
f. “Social Media” policy, which requires employees to obtain consent prior
to posting anything concerning the company on social media, and employer monitoring.
30
g. “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy, which requires pre-
approval before employees’ write or speak publicly about their workplace.
3. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning
of § 2(6) and (7) of the Act.35
REMEDY
Having found that G&E committed unfair labor practices, it is ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the Act. Given that its 40
policies are maintained on a companywide basis, it shall be ordered to post a notice at all of its
facilities where the unlawful policies have been, or are, in effect. See Longs Drug Stores
California, 347 NLRB 500, 501 (2006); Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005). Its
duty to rescind or modify the unlawful policies is governed by Guardsmark LLC, supra.17 It

17 “The Respondent may comply with our Order by rescinding the unlawful provisions and
republishing its employee handbook without them. We recognize, however, that republishing the
JD–84–19
10
shall nationally distribute remedial notices via email, intranet, internet, or other appropriate
electronic means to its employees, in addition to the traditional physical posting of paper
notices, if it customarily communicates with workers in this manner. See J Picini Flooring, 356
NLRB 11 (2010).18
5
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended19
ORDER
10
G&E Real Estate Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
15
a. Maintaining a “Responsive Action” policy in its Employee Handbook,
which subjects workers who non-maliciously provide false information during workplace
investigations to discipline and discharge.
b. Maintaining an “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy in 20
its Employee Handbook, which bans employees “from participating in outside work activities
that might present a conflict of interest.”
c. Maintaining a “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee
Information” policy in its Employee Handbook, which bans workers from supplying employee 25
information to outside entities without authorization.
d. Maintaining a “Company Property” policy in its Employee Handbook,
which bars all unauthorized solicitation and other protected activity from its facilities, and bans
using email during non-working time for non-business purposes. 30
e. Maintaining a “Use of Company Information Technology” policy in its
Employee Handbook, which bans employees from using email and other information
technology systems during non-working time for non-business purposes.
35

handbook could entail significant costs. Accordingly, the Respondent may supply the employees either
with handbook inserts stating that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or with new and lawfully
worded rules on adhesive backing which will cover the old and unlawfully broad rules, until it
republishes the handbook without the unlawful provisions. Thereafter, any copies of the handbook that
are printed with the unlawful rules must include the new inserts before being distributed to employees.”
Guardsmark, supra at 812 fn. 8.
18 Although Counsel for the Acting General Counsel has requested a notice reading remedy, such
relief is unwarranted. Standard remedial relief will adequately remedy the unfair labor practices at issue
herein.
19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–84–19
11
f. Maintaining a “Social Media” policy in its Employee Handbook, which
requires employees to obtain consent prior to posting anything concerning the company on
social media and requires employer monitoring.
g. Maintaining an “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy in its 5
Employee Handbook, which requires pre-approval before employees’ write or speak publicly.
h. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by §7 of the Act.
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act
a. Rescind or modify the language in the following provisions of its
Employee Handbook15
i. The “Responsive Action” policy to the extent that it subjects
workers who non-maliciously provide false information during workplace investigations to
discipline and discharge.
20
ii. The “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy to the
extent that it bans employees “from participating in outside work activities that might present
a conflict of interest.”
iii. The “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee 25
Information” to the extent that it bans workers from supplying employee information to outside
entities without authorization.
iv. The “Company Property” policy to the extent that it bars all
unauthorized solicitation and other protected activity from its facilities, and bans using email 30
during non-working time for non-business purposes.
v. The “Use of Company Information Technology” policy to the
extent that it bans employees from using email and other information technology systems
during non-working time for non-business purposes.35
vi. The “Social Media” policy to the extent that it requires
employees to obtain consent prior to posting anything concerning the company on social media.
vii. The “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy to the 40
extent that it requires pre-approval before employees’ write or speak publicly about their
workplace.
b. Furnish all current employees with inserts for the Employee Handbook
that45
i. Advise that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or
JD–84–19
12
ii. Provide the language of lawful rules or publish and distribute a
revised Employee Handbook that
1. Does not contain the unlawful rules, or5
2. Provides the language of lawful rules.
c. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at each of its facilities
in the United States, where its Employee Handbook is in effect, copies of the attached notice, 10
marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet 15
or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, it shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees 20
employed it at any time since December 23, 2015.
d. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that it has taken to comply.25
Dated Washington, D.C. November 8, 2019
30
Robert A. Ringler
Administrative Law Judge

20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to
a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
41/5a,
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which subject workers who
non-maliciously provide false information during workplace investigations to potential
discipline and discharge.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which ban you “from
participating in outside work activities that might present a conflict of interest.”
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which ban you from giving
employee and workplace information to outside entities without authorization.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which bar all unauthorized
solicitation and other protected activity from our facilities, and ban using email and other
information technology during non-working time for non-business purposes.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which ban you from using
telephones and other communication systems during non-working time for non-business
purposes.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which require you to obtain
our consent before posting anything about us on social media or require you to permit us to
monitor your social media accounts.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which require our pre-approval
before you can write or speak publicly about your workplace.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise
of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL rescind or modify the language in the following provisions of our Employee
Handbook:
1. The “Responsive Action” policy to the extent that it subjects workers
who non-maliciously provide false information during workplace investigations to potential
discipline and discharge.
2. The “Outside Employment and Business Activities” policy to the extent
that it bans you “from participating in outside work activities that might present a conflict of
interest.”
3. The “Reference Inquiries and Requests for Employee Information” to
the extent that it bans you from supplying employee information to outside entities without
authorization.
4. The “Company Property” to the extent that it bars all unauthorized
solicitation and other protected activity from our facilities, and bans using email during non-
working time for non-business purposes.
5. The “Use of Company Information Technology” policy to the extent that
it bans employees from using email and other information technology systems during non-
working time for non-business purposes.
6. The “Social Media” policy to the extent that it requires employees to
obtain consent prior to posting anything concerning us on social media and requires employees
to permit monitoring of their social media accounts.
7. The “Outside Speaking and Writing Activities” policy to the extent that
it requires pre-approval before employees write or speak publicly about their workplace.
WE WILL furnish all of you with inserts for the current Employee Handbook that:
1. Advise that the unlawful provisions, above have been rescinded, or
2. Provide the language of lawful provisions, or publish and distribute
revised Employee Handbooks that:
a. Do not contain the unlawful provisions, or
b. Provide the language of lawful provisions.
G&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC. D/B/A NEWMARK GRUBB
KNIGHT FRANK
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-178893 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (602) 416-4755.