Archive for the ‘social networking’ Category
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it had reached a settlement in a case involving an employee’s discharge for posting negative comments about a supervisor on the employee’s Facebook page. Click here for the NLRB’s press release.
In sum, however, the NLRB had issued a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., on October 27, 2010, alleging that the discharge violated federal labor law (the National Labor Relations Act or “NLRA”) because the employee was engaged in “protected activity” when she posted the comments about her supervisor, and responded to further comments from her co-workers.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or non-union — for discussing working conditions or unionization.
The NLRB complaint also alleged that the company maintained overly broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees. This policy prohibited employees from making disparaging remarks about the company or depicting it online without permission. Further, the NLRB alleged that AMR (the employer) had illegally denied union representation to the employee during an investigatory interview shortly before the employee posted the negative comments on her Facebook page.
Under the terms of the approved settlement, the company agreed to revise its social media policy to ensure that the rules do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions. The allegations involving the employee’s discharge were resolved through a separate, private agreement between the employee and the company.
The Take Away for Employers
This had been the first case in which the NLRB sought to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site was a protected activity under the NLRA and that employers would be violating the NLRA by punishing workers for making statements in the context of social media. Accordingly, employers likely would have welcomed guidance from the NLRB as to how the 75-year-old NLRA would be reconciled with the technological realities of how employees communicate in the age of social media.
For example, the employee involved in the NLRB’s complaint, Dawnmarie Souza, at one point mocked her supervisor on Facebook, using several vulgarities to ridicule him. This eventually drew supportive responses from her co-workers that led to further negative comments about the supervisor. Where a Facebook conversation involves several co-workers it is more likely to be viewed as “concerted protected activity.” But what if instead, Ms. Souza had simply lashed out in a negative post against a supervisor and no co-workers joined in the discussion (not even a single “like” in Facebook terminology). Would that type of comment in the absence of “co-worker discussion” still be considered protected?
In any event, from a strategic perspective, employers should appreciate that this issue will be resolved another day, perhaps under a less “labor friendly” NLRB.
The clear take-away, however, is that the NLRB’s original complaint and this settlement signals that the NLRB intends to protect employees’ rights to discuss the conditions of their employment with co-workers irrespective of whether this discussion takes place at the water cooler or on Facebook.
Accordingly, it is critical for employers – regardless of whether your workforce is unionized or not – to review your Internet and social media policies to determine whether they would be subject to a similar attack by the NLRB that the policy ‘reasonably tends to chill employees’ ” in the exercise of their rights under the NLRA to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization. Areas to consider include:
- Does the social media policy expressly restrict protected activity;
- Would an employee construe the social media policy as prohibiting protected activity;
- Has the social media policy been used to discipline employees who engaged in protected activity; and
- Was the policy put into place in in response to concerted or protected activity.
None of this should be taken as legal advice, but it is good advice. And we would welcome the opportunity to offer our insight as to what policies should and should not say and strategies for managing the unique risks found at the intersection of social media and employment and labor law.
Written by Jason Shinn
February 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm
A number of resources are available at www.ebusinesscounsel.com that are relevant to starting or improving your business operations. In addition to those resources, the following links also provide information worth checking out:
- Entrepreneur: How to Protect Remote Employees’ PCs from Security Threats
- Federal Trade Commission: Revised Endorsement Guides for businesses & bloggers (regulations applicable to testimonials and endorsements)
- Entrepreneur: Google Apps for Your Business: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Hennessey Capital, by Joe Romeo: Business Plan Basics
- Mashable – Business: 5 Small Biz Web Design Trends to Watch
- Entrepreneur: Big Marketing Stunts, Small-Business Style
- Business Model Alchemist a/k/a Alexander Osterwalder a/k/a genius (ok, this might be more personal commentary than fact. Although, based on Mr. Osterwalder’s work, genius status should not be ruled out) :Combining Business Model Prototyping, Customer Development, and Social Entrepreneurship
- Mashable – Business: 4 Lessons Small Businesses Can Learn from Apple’s Antennagate
Written by Jason Shinn
August 11, 2010 at 9:14 am