Opinion ID: 185699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confidentiality Policy

Text: 18 The Board held that the Hospital's confidentiality policy was overbroad and therefore unlawful. That policy states: Information concerning patients, associates [that is, nurses], or hospital operations should not be discussed either inside or outside the hospital, except strictly in connection with hospital business. Brockton Hosp., 333 N.L.R.B. No. 165 at 10. The Board held the policy overbroad because it would have a tendency to cause nurses who read it to believe it restricted his or her [sic] right to discuss hours, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. Id. 19 According to the Hospital, the policy merely protects the confidentiality of patient information, making the Board's decision contrary to this court's teaching in Aroostook County Reg'l Ophthalmology Ctr. v. NLRB, 81 F.3d 209, 213 (1996), and the Board's prior decision in Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 N.L.R.B. 824, 1998 WL 574958 (1998). Not at all. The policy on its face prohibits nurses from discussing with each other, let alone Union officials, information concerning [themselves], which the Board argues the nurses could reasonably read to include their wages, hours, and working conditions — the very stuff of collective bargaining. The employer in Aroostook, by contrast, prohibited discussion only of office business, which the court expressly understood not to cover the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. 81 F.3d at 212-13. Considering the terms of the confidentiality policy in this case, the Board reasonably applied the standard set forth in Lafayette Park, namely, whether a rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, 326 N.L.R.B. at 825.