Comedian Rodney Dangerfield famously complained: “I don’t get no respect.” According to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board, Dangerfield shouldn’t expect respect in the workplace, either.

In May, an NLRB administrative law judge rejected a Starbucks policy requiring respectful communication in the workplace because enforcement of the policy chilled employees’ rights to discuss the terms and conditions of employment.

A Starbucks policy titled “How We Communicate” stated: “Partners are expected to communicate with other partners and customers in a professional and respectful manner at all times. The use of vulgar or profane language is not acceptable.”

The judge applied an analysis from a case involving Stericycle for determining whether or not workplace rules interfere with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity to address the terms and conditions of employment.

When a workplace rule doesn’t facially prohibit protected speech, the NLRB first examines whether or not the workplace rule has a “reasonable tendency to chill” employees from engaging in protected concerted activity. The NLRB makes this determination from the perspective of an employee “who is subject to the rule and economically dependent on the employer.” A work rule is deemed presumptively unlawful “if an employee could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning … even if a contrary, noncoercive interpretation of the rule is also reasonable.”

If the NLRB finds a rule tends to chill protected speech, the employer must show the rule “advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.” Consequently, employers must draft the least coercive workplace rules that advance a substantial business interest.

This places a much higher burden on employers than the previous standard the NRLB adopted in a case involving Boeing.

Applying the Boeing standard to cases of workplace rules that didn’t facially interfere with protected activity, the NLRB would simply examine whether the potential adverse effect on protected rights was outweighed by legitimate justifications associated with the rule.

Under the Stericyle standard, it’s hard to imagine any requirement for respect, civility or professionalism to survive — at least in the context of employee-to-employee communication.

Stericyle extends well beyond these behavioral rules, affecting such employer policies as those involving use of social media, employee surveillance and video and audio recording in the workplace.

What should employers do when examining workplace rules and handbook policies? The Stericyle decision provided scant practical guidance to employers, who must apply this decision to workplace rules and policies.

The best place to start is to apply the test the NLRB uses to analyze rules.

First, employers should examine policies and rules to determine whether or not employees could feel chilled in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activity. An employer can’t wait for an employee to complain a rule interferes with protected activity. And if an employer can imagine a rule-chilling speech, the rule probably fails this element.

Second, an employer should ask why a rule exists. Does a legitimate business purpose for the rule exist? If so, does the rule further the business purpose in the least coercive method possible?

Employers must ensure their handbooks, workplace rules and other policies are crafted purposely to meet business needs while not chilling employee rights to engage in concerted activity to address the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Employers Council provides employee handbook reviews to consulting and enterprise members as part of membership as well as numerous online resources and templates to all members. Consulting and enterprise members may discuss with the council’s HR professionals and employment attorneys how Stericyle and its progeny affect their workplaces.