This week, the National Labor Relations Board told Thomson Reuters that it will file a civil complaint accusing the company of illegally reprimanding a reporter over a public Twitter posting criticizing management. The reporter posted the following to a Reuters Twitter address: “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members.” She was subsequently advised by Reuters’ management that she should not have published a post that could damage the company’s reputation. Although she has indicated that she felt intimidated, it is not clear whether she was actually disciplined for the post. The NLRB has taken the position that Reuters violated the reporter’s federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions. Although this is the first incident involving Twitter, it is not the NLRB’s first foray into the realm of social media. In October 2010, the NLRB filed a complaint against an ambulance company in Connecticut on behalf of an employee who had been terminated because she had posted negative comments about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page in violation of the company’s blogging and internet posting policy. That case was settled in February 2011.
The basis for the NLRB’s position in these cases is §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under §7 of the NLRA. Section 7 permits employees, whether or not they are represented by a union, to engage in protected concerted activities to improve working conditions such as wages and benefits. In the earlier Facebook case, the Social Media policy in issue prohibited employees from “making disparaging, discriminating or defamatory comments when discussing the company or the employees’ supervisors, co-workers and/or competitors.” The NLRB took the position that the policy standing alone interfered with the employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity. As part of the settlement, the employer agreed to revise its policy to allow employees to discuss working conditions, wages, hours, etc. In the more recent Twitter case, it is not clear if there is a company policy at issue or if the complaint is based solely on the oral reprimand of the reporter.
These cases make clear the NLRB’s intent to pursue §8(a)(1) violations in the realm of social media. As a result, employers should review and/or implement social media policies that protect their interests but stop short of the broad prohibitions that the NLRB believes will chill employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. Broad prohibitions against making disparaging or defamatory comments about the employer, supervisors or co-workers are unlikely to survive NLRB scrutiny. Employers must also train supervisors on these issues so that they do not reprimand employees for engaging in conduct that is arguably protected; at least not without first consulting human resources or legal counsel.
Of course, this does not mean that employers may never restrict employees’ use of social media. Employers may legitimately protect proprietary, confidential and financial information, incorporate anti-harassment and discrimination policies into social media policies and otherwise legitimately curtail employees’ use of social media as it relates to the workplace. However, given the subtleties of the law and the fact that it is still being developed, it would be wise to consult with a qualified labor attorney before implementing a policy.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Labor Law
- Title VII
- FLSA
- NLRB
- Workplace Violence
- Department of Justice
- Coronavirus
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- NLRA
- Diversity
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Federal Trade Commission
- Overtime Pay
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employment Litigation
- IRS
- Litigation
- Medical Marijuana
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Unions
- Whistleblower
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- United States Supreme Court
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Privacy Laws
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
- The Independent Contractor Tug-of-War: Navigating the Latest DOL Shifts
- ICE Raids and Audits – What’s an Employer to Do
- New Online Registration Requirements for Foreign Nationals
- Workplace Violence: Are You Taking Required Steps to Protect Your Employees?
- EEOC & DOJ New Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination: What Does it Mean for Employers?
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?