Termination pursuant to an unlawful rule = violation of NLRA. Period.

Back in the day, I was a young lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board, duking it out over unfair labor practice charges. It was my first job, and I loved it. Reading Northeastern Land Services, LTD. v. National Labor Relations Board, a March 13 case from the 1st Circuit, brought back an argument I used many years ago: If an employer fires an employee pursuant to a rule that violated the National Labor Relations Act, then the termination -- no ifs, ands or buts -- was an automatic violation of the act. Here's the deal, as related by the 1st Circuit: The employer, a placement agency called the NLS Group, has a rule in an employment contract: "Employee . . . understands that the terms of this employment, including compensation, are confidential to employee and the NLS Goup. Disclosure of these terms to other parties may constitute grounds for dismissal." The NLS Group placed Jamison Dupuy at a company. Dupuy was upset about some of the arrangements on reimbursement and spoke to the company where he was placed about these concerns, thus violating the NLS rule. NLS fired him. The NLS group argued that the NLRB, which brought a complaint, might have an argument if Dupuy was fired for disclosing information to fellow workers. After all, employees under the NLRA have a right to discuss, among themselves, terms and conditions of employment. But this right was not implicated here, so NLS should win. The 1st Circuit said no. The rule was invalid. Period. Termination pursuant to an unlawful rule sends the employer to the penalty box. Nothing else matters.