Archive for the Category ◊ Social Media ◊

Author:
• Monday, November 12th, 2012
As discussed in prior blog posts,  I have discussed the fact that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been very active with respect to regulating employee use of social media.  The Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, has issued three reports on social media in the past year. The first report detailed the Board’s conclusions resulting from investigation into fourteen cases involving the use of social media and employers’ social and general media policies. Mr. Solomon’s focus was to determine whether the online communications between employees about working conditions constituted “concerted activity” (when two or more employees take action for their mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment). If a communication constitutes “concerted activity”, it means an employer cannot discipline the employee for such conduct.

Mr. Solomon has issued two additional reports regarding terminations of employees pursuant to company policies on social media. The main points for employers are:

  1. social media policies should not be so broad that they prohibit or deter the kinds of activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as a genuine discussion of work conditions; and
  2. an employee’s comments or postings on social media sites are generally not protected if they are individual complaints not made in furtherance of generating group discussion among employees.

Mr. Solomon’s guidance has now been incorporated into certain NLRB opinions.  On September 7 2012, the NLRB issued its first opinion invalidating an employer’s electronic posting rules in Costco Wholesale Corp.  On September 28, 2012, it did so again in Karl Knauz Motors, Inc. d/b/a Knauz BMW and Robert Becker.  The Costco rule prohibited employees from making statements that “damage the Company… or damage any person’s reputation”.  BMW had a policy that stated: “Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.”  The NLRB felt that each policy would “tend to chill” employees from exercising their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.  Generally, Section 7 allows employees the right to act with, or as directed by, other employees to gripe about the terms and conditions of their employment without fear of retaliation.

The NLRB’s three reports and its most recent decisions provide that a policy cannot prohibit a wide range of conduct such as a general statement “prohibiting disclosure of the company’s trade secrets” without providing specific examples. Further, the earlier reports found the following types of language in policies to be too broad:

  1. general language prohibiting the release of confidential information;
  2. general language prohibiting any commentary on legal issues at the company;
  3. requiring employees to respect the privacy of others;
  4. requiring employees to exercise personal responsibility; and
  5. requiring that employees treat co-workers with respect or use a friendly tone.

As with the language in the Costco and BMW policies, the problem with these statements is that an employee could interpret them as limiting their ability to discuss workplace conditions with coworkers. However, what the NLRB’s Costco and BMW decisions confirm is that broad language providing specific examples of what is and is not permissible is acceptable. For example, language in a social media policy prohibiting employees from inappropriate postings which include “discriminatory remarks, harassment and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct” passes muster because it identifies only plainly egregious conduct and thus would not be considered to be deterring employees from engaging in protected activity.

There is no “one size fits all” policy. As a result, employers should examine their policies in light of the specific issues their business faces and draft a policy with those specifics in mind.

I am happy to discuss your policies with you and assist in modifying them as necessary.

Share
Author:
• Friday, September 23rd, 2011

 

On august 18th, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) Office of General Counsel issued a lengthy memorandum to all Regional Directors. In the memo, the General Counsel summarizes the NLRB’s position with respect to more than 12 social media cases and certain social media policy provisions. It does NOT matter if you are a union shop. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) gives all employees the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations. It also provides employees the right to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The NLRB is looking at drawing the line between individual gripes (unprotected) and collaborative activity (known to the NLRB as, collective activity) (protected). The NLRB specifically states that “an activity is concerted when an employee acts with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” Collective activity must also relate to the terms and conditions of employment, the exercise of rights conferred by the NLRA, or other matters traditionally considered “protected activity” under the Boards’ precedent. Furthermore, the concerted activity must be either the culmination of an on-going dispute with the employer or the continuation of a pre-existing conversation among employees. Also, the NLRB finds that abusive language alone is, in and of, itself irrelevant to the NLRB. You will notice in several of the Facebook posts, coarse language was used, but since it was concerted activity discussing the terms and conditions of employment, the posts were protected activity. It will now be critical to ensure that your policies explicitly state that the policy will not be construed or applied in a manner that improperly interferes with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA. Your take away from this post is that you need to ensure that you read the memorandum and apply its advice to your social media policies and disciplinary procedures.

Share