ILNews

Social media and Section 7 rights: employers under fire

October 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Columns

Imagine this: An employee names and accuses a coworker of calling fellow employees unhelpful on Facebook. The post asks Facebook friends (some of whom are coworkers) to respond. A few coworkers respond aggressively and in vulgar terms. One states, “What the hell, we don’t have a life as is, what else can we do???” Another, “Tell her to come do [my] f---ing job[and see] if I don’t do enough, this is just dum.” The targeted coworker takes a copy of the comments to the company director. The director views the comments as cyber-bullying and fires the offending individuals for violating the organization’s harassment policy.

swider-david.jpg Swider

This situation occurred in Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 37 (2012). What happened next may surprise you. The National Labor Relations Board ordered that the workers be reinstated with back pay. In doing so, the NLRB found the employees’ Facebook postings constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157. To the NLRB, the employees’ comments were aimed at their job performance and were “concerted for the ‘purpose of mutual aid or protection’ as required by Section 7.’”

zimmerly-philip.jpg Zimmerly

Section 7 protects the right of employees “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, … and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Emphasis added.) These protections extend to employees whether they are unionized or not. The employer in Hispanics United was non-union and its employees were not engaged in any known union activity. Nonetheless, Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for any employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce” employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 29 U.S.C. § 158

The Hispanics United case is illustrative of the NLRB’s recent push to extend what it means to engage in concerted activity in the digital age. As Mark Pearce, chairman of the NLRB, described in a 2013 New York Times article, social media is the new water cooler. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.” Yet, applying Section 7 to social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, has far-reaching implications. Employers, especially non-union employers, must recognize the shift and act affirmatively to avoid being caught in the crosshairs of an NLRB investigation.

First, employers must recognize the Internet may allow greater access to its employees’ conversations, but that may not be a good thing. A few years ago, one might expect employees to share complaints on a coffee break. These “gripe sessions” involved limited participants and were subject to differing versions of what was meant or said. Today’s employers should not be surprised if employees complain about their jobs online, in clear and permanent detail, for the whole world to see.

Employers may be understandably disturbed when complaints are shared so broadly, but they should be careful if and how they respond. The NLRB has not only extended Section 7 protections, but it has also targeted employers’ non-disparagement, social media, insubordination, electronic resources, and similar policies to assure employees have greater latitude to discuss wages and conditions of employment. For example, in Knauz Motors, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 164 (2012), a car dealer had a policy that, “No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.” The NLRB found that this common prohibition chilled Section 7 actions “because employees would reasonably construe its broad prohibition against ‘disrespectful’ conduct and ‘language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership’ as encompassing Section 7 activity.”

What is an employer to do? Will this new trend afford employees license to rip apart bosses and coworkers online without facing consequences? Unfortunately, with the current NLRB, that may be the case in all but the most egregious or “non-concerted” circumstances.

At least paying lip service to these amorphous boundaries, an advice memorandum issued by the NLRB associate general counsel in May 2013 purports to limit what online activity is deemed concerted activity under Section 7. According to the background facts, 10 individuals participated in a Facebook “group message” initiated by a former employee organizing a social event, through which the charging party verbally attacked a former coworker. The employee stated, “They [the Employer] are full of s--- . . . . They seem to be staying away from me, you know I don’t bite my [tongue] anymore, F--- . . . FIRE ME . . . . Make my day . . . .” No other employees responded to her comments. The employer obliged the discontented worker and fired her.

The associate general counsel advised that the tirade did not amount to protected concerted activity because the party’s comments “merely expressed an individual gripe rather than any shared concerns about working conditions.” The only subsequent posting pertaining to the workplace did not contain a common thread pertaining to any shared concerns about working conditions.

This advice provides little comfort or guidance for employers who encounter similar tirades online. Instead, it further blurs the line employers must walk when dealing with online criticism. For example, the memo’s analysis implies if other commenters had responded, or if the topic of conversation had been “mutual workplace concerns,” such as wages or job security, the discussion may have suddenly transformed into protected activity under Section 7, thereby rendering the consequent discipline unlawful.

While the NLRA may have been intended to promote workplace peace and balance employer business needs against employee rights, these goals have been largely overlooked by the NLRB in favor of creating a breeding ground for union organizing. Such a broad application of Section 7 rights to social media leaves employers vulnerable in utilizing traditional employment policies in the face of new and expanding technology. Until Congress or the courts step in, businesses must be mindful of these new standards as they respond to an ever-growing climate of employee social media use and misuse.•

__________

David Swider is chair of the Bose McKinney & Evans Labor and Employment Law Group. He represents employers in labor and employment law matters, including labor and employment law litigation, employment discrimination, NLRB practice and procedure, grievance resolution and arbitration, affirmative action, collective bargaining, wage and hour, and union avoidance. Philip Zimmerly is an associate in the Labor and Employment Law Group at Bose McKinney & Evans. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT