NLRB issues another complaint over a Facebook termination

Like I said yesterday in discussing the NLRB’s position on social media terminations, “The policy direction of the NLRB is a lot like the weather in Florida—if you don’t like it, wait 5 minutes and it will probably change.” Consider the following, courtesy of the NLRB’s website:

The National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint alleging that Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit that provides social services to low-income clients, unlawfully discharged five employees after they took to Facebook to criticize working conditions, including work load and staffing issues….

The case involves an employee who, in advance of a meeting with management about working conditions, posted to her Facebook page a coworker’s allegation that employees did not do enough to help the organization’s clients.  The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. After learning of the posts, Hispanics United discharged the five employees who participated, claiming that their comments constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.

Unlike the case I discussed yesterday (in which the employer received a pass for terminating a tweeting employee for insubordination), the NLRB takes issue with these terminations because they “involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels.”

This case is set for trial in 5 weeks. Like the American Medical Response case before it, this case could always settle. There is, however, hope on the horizon that employers will finally receive the guidance they crave on the handling of social media under the National Labor Relations Act. If the NLRB’s press release is any indication, however, employers should not hold out hope that the NLRB will give employers a pass on social media posts as protected concerted activity.

As the NLRB’s position on social media continues to evolve, keep watching this space for updates.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Are you better off without a social media policy?

A few months ago—following an attack by the NLRB by what it perceived as an overly broad social media policy—pundits were screaming that the sky was falling on these new-breed policies. Now, the NLRB is starting to provide some clarity on the misuse of social media by employees.

After the Arizona Daily Star fired a reporter based on the content of his tweets, the employee filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. While the company lacked a social media policy, it did warn the reporter about his tweeting; it ultimately terminated him for ignoring those warnings.

The NLRB—in an Advice Memorandum from the its General Counsel [pdf]—concluded that the termination did not violate federal labor laws:

In this case, even if the Employer implemented an unlawful rule, the Charging Party was terminated for posting inappropriate and unprofessional tweets, after having been warned not to do so, i.e. for engaging in misconduct….

We further conclude that the Employer did not implement an unlawful rule. In this regard, we acknowledge that, in warning the Charging Party to cease his inappropriate tweets, and then discharging him for continuing to post inappropriate tweets, the Employer made statements that could be interpreted to prohibit activities protected by Section 7.

However, those statements did not constitute orally promulgated, overbroad “rules.” Thus, the statements were made solely to the Charging Party in the context of discipline, and in response to specific inappropriate conduct, and were not communicated to any other employees or proclaimed as new “rules.” … [I]t would not effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act to issue a complaint where the statements were directed to a single employee who was lawfully discharged.

In other words, because the employer lacked a policy, it directed its social media proscriptions only to the fired employee, and the employee was fired for ignoring warnings, the termination did not implicate the employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity. One can speculate that if the employer had a social media policy, this employer might have had the same potential overbreadth problem as American Medical Response.

This guidance from the NLRB begs the following question: are you better off without a social media policy, instead treating employees’ (mis)use of social media on an ad hoc basis? I think not. Despite the NLRB’s current hostility towards social media, employees need direction. They need to understand the set of rules under which they are playing, so that an employer can apply a termination or other needed corrective action fairly and without surprise.

It is possible to draft a social media policy that provides sufficient guidance to employees, protects employers from rogue conduct, and passes muster under the NLRB’s current iteration. Besides, the policy direction of the NLRB is a lot like the weather in Florida—if you don’t like it, wait 5 minutes and it will probably change.

[Hat tip: Employer Law Report]

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

How do other cultures handle HR?

Monsters, Inc., holds a special place in my heart. It was the first movie my wife and I saw together. As an employment lawyer, then, the following sign at the Mike & Sully meet and greet at Disney’s Hollywood Studios struck exactly the right note.

Interestingly, the last bullet point shows that even Monstropolis sees the importance of covering social media in workplace policies. I’m not sure when Disney crafted this sign, but I wonder if it’s one of the earliest examples of a social media policy.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Best of: Unstable employees, direct threats, and the ADA

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2011/01/unstable-employees-direct-threats-and.html

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Best of: Ohio just became a friendlier state for age discrimination plaintiffs

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2011/01/ohio-just-became-friendlier-state-for.html

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Best of: The worst feeling ever, and importance of candor

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2010/08/worst-feeling-ever-and-importance-of.html

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Best of: Challenging non-competition agreements

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2010/08/do-you-know-challenging-non-competition.html

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.