As part of an insubordination inquiry, the employer, Banner Health System through its human resource consultant, told an accident employee, who was being interviewed as part of an insubordination investigation not to discuss the investigation’s details, the employee’s, role or what had been said during the interview. In regards to a prohibition against employee communications, the NLRB suggested that the employer must demonstrate the existence of a “substantial business justification” to outweigh the employee’s Section 7 collective rights to be permissible. A general concern with protecting the integrity of the investigation is not substantial enough to meet this standard. It appears to be the case that a “substantial business justification” needs to be such things as an employee or third party’s safety is jeopardized, the target of or a participant in the investigation might become violent, the target or the participant might threaten or manipulate other witnesses, or where evidence might be destroyed or lost. Only when these types of determinations are made can you request confidentiality, and there you need to limit it to specifically the interview and things that were discussed, as well as impressions and opinions, in such interview. Consistent with normal practices when a violation is found, not only was the employer required to cease from enforcing a provision in its confidentiality agreement that contains the following language: “private employee information (such as salaries, disciplinary action, etc.) is not shared by the employee,” but they must post a notice stating that the employees have a right to join a union, choose their representative to bargain, act together for their benefit and protection, but also choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. Banner Health System and James A. Navarro, Case No. 28-CA-023438 (2012).