New Year Bring New Guidance from NLRB on Employees and Social Media

The National Labor Relations Board is at it again.

In August 2011, its Acting General Counsel, Lafe E. Solomon, issued a report summarizing several of its then-pending enforcement actions dealing with social media.  These are disputes in which an employee was disciplined or terminated for something he or she posted online.  In many of these cases, the NLRB sided with the employee, bringing charges against the employers for infringing the employees’ federal right to engage in “concerted activity.”

Six months later, Solomon recognizes that “these issues and their treatment by the NLRB continue to be a ‘hot topic’ among practitioners, human resources professionals, the media, and the public.”  Therefore, in an attempt to keep all of these audiences informed on what the Board is thinking and where its efforts are headed, Solomon released a followup report on January 24, 2012.  This document summarizes “fourteen recent cases that present emerging issues in the context of social media [and employment law].”

One notable aspect of these cases is that the Board appears to be focusing even more of its attention on the employer’s social media policy, as opposed to just the facts of individual employees’ dismissal.  In some cases, even when the Board agreed with a termination, it still punished the employer for language in social media policies that, if read literally, gave the employer too much discretion over employee behavior.

As I did last time, instead of analyzing each case at length, I’ll reprint the headlines from each section in the report.  This will give you an idea of why the NLRB considers these 14 cases to be important representations of the “emerging issues” in this area of law:

  • Discharge for Facebook Comments and for Violation of Non-Disparagement Rule Was Unlawful
  • Discharge for Facebook Comments Was Lawful, But Social Media Policy and No-Solicitation Rule Were Overly Broad
  • Employer’s Social Media Policy Was Overbroad, But Employee’s Facebook Posts Were Not Protected
  • Portions of Employer’s Communications Systems Policy Were Overbroad
  • Employer’s Initial Social Media Policy Was Overbroad, But Amended Version Was Lawful
  • Provisions in Drugstore Operator’s Social Media Policy Withstand Scrutiny
  • Employee Was Unlawfully Discharged for Her Facebook Complaint About Reprimand
  • Employees’ Facebook Postings About Supervisor and Promotion Selection Were Protected Concerted Activity
  • Employee’s Facebook Postings About Manager’s Attitude and Style Were Protected Concerted Activity
  • Employee’s Critical Online Postings Were Protected Concerted Activity That Did Not Lose Act’s Protection
  • Employee’s Facebook Postings About Irritating Coworker and Workplace Incident Were Not Protected
  • Truck Driver Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity and Was Not Constructively Discharged
  • Employee’s Facebook Criticism of Supervisor Was Venting and Was Not Concerted

 

 

About Brian Wassom:
All Posts by Brian Wassom | Share By Email | Brian Wassom on Google+
  • http://Www.idoinspire.com Jody urquhart

    I think it will be hard for any company to legislate and control every social case. That is what social media is a means to share information. The minute you say you can do this but not this you defeat the purpose

  • http://www.justjoan.joanginsberg.com Joan Ginsberg

    Just found your blog, Eric – I’ll be following. Honigman was my first post-law school job. Small world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405555604 Elisha

    I think that it’s interesting that the British geoernmvnt is more concerned about the technology used in creating the riots, than they are with the riots themselves. People will find a way to communicate and rebel, whether they use recent technology or not.I can understand both sides of the argument that police should be able to moniter phone calls if they are related to criminal activity, however, I believe the police should be monitered so they do not overstep their rights. I think the line is a little blurry when it comes to our freedom of speech. Its difficult to determine what is crossing the line. is it right that police can listen to our phone calls? Maybe. But, I think most of the time it is used for the good of someone else who is in danger. I don’t think limiting the requirements of technology such as twitter is going to help anything. It will just cause more riots. If someone is dumb enough to say they are going to blow up an airport on their twitter, then they are going to have to live with the consequences.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405545497 Surya

    I think using social media to aid in the court of law is alpactebce. Courts and prosecutors already use email as a general way of communication. A Facebook message should be regarded as the same medium. The use of social media should be permissible but shouldn’t be controlled. If it is possible that social media could save a life, or locate a missing person, why wouldn’t we use it? The general rule, Don’t post anything you wouldn’t want your mother to see, seems to have been forgot. I personally de-friend people who post extreme pictures or anything that I find offensive. The digital world creates alter personnas for people where they can express themselves. It isn’t my place to tell someone that posting a risque9 photo is inappropriate, and the government shouldn’t regulate social media either. It could be argues it is part of the First Ammendement and freedom of speech. Allowing the government to control it would give too much power where it is not necessarily needed.