In Banner Health System, 358 N.L.R.B No. 93 (July 30, 2012), the NLRB found that an employer violated the right of workers to participate in concerted activities protected in accordance with Section 7 of the National Labor Relations, which grants workers the right to freely communicate with their employees about the terms of their employment without fear of reprisal by maintaining and enforcing a rule that prohibits employees from discussing ongoing investigations personnel obligations. During the questioning of staff who filed a complaint, the respondent`s practice was to ask staff not to discuss it with his staff during the ongoing investigation. In a controversial split panel decision, the Chamber stated that „[d] a ban on workers discussing ongoing investigations must justify an employer having to prove that it has a legitimate business justification that prevails over workers` rights under Section 7.“ An employer`s „general concern to protect the integrity of its investigation is insufficient.“ Confidentiality is usually motivated by fear of reprisals. As you can convince the witness that the employer will not tolerate reprisals, you can often relieve their concern for confidentiality, even if you refuse to promise confidentiality. Third, always start the investigation immediately and schedule, whenever possible, closely collaborative interviews, so that there is as little time as possible between the complaint, the investigation and the closing. Less time from start to finish reduces opportunities for stakeholders, including witnesses, to discuss topics with each other. The Boeing case also established three categories of confidentiality rules. They are quoted in these terms: But in yesterday`s decision by Apogee Retail, a majority of the NLRB found that the previous board had wrongly departed from its obligation to reconcile employers` business justifications with the harmful effects of workers` rights. The NRL noted that the employer`s confidentiality rules must be analyzed in its recent Boeing Co. decision, in which occupational health and safety rules fall into one of three categories: without the possibility of requiring confidentiality, however, employers found that they were unable to guarantee the integrity of the investigation or to protect the reporting employee and other participants from reprisals. In addition, employers faced a serious dilemma because the NNRB guidelines were inconsistent with the current EEOC recommendation for general confidentiality rules that are necessary during workplace investigations. As a result, employers were forced to decide what regulatory provisions they would comply with and should expect possible legal consequences in the event of non-compliance.