11. Employees' Posts on Social Media May Be Protected Under Labor Law.
Fifty-fifty if It Enrages Your Dominate, Social Net Speech Is Protected
As Facebook and Twitter go as central to workplace chat as the visitor cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online.
Employers oftentimes seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don't hash out visitor matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don't disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing crime.
But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such coating restrictions illegal. The National Labor Relations Lath says workers accept a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the give-and-take takes place at the office or on Facebook.
In add-on to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like Full general Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.
"Many view social media as the new water cooler," said Mark G. Pearce, the board'southward chairman, noting that federal police has long protected the right of employees to discuss piece of work-related matters. "All nosotros're doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology."
The decisions come up amidst a broader argue over what constitutes appropriate discussion on Facebook and other social networks. Schools and universities are wrestling with online bullying and educatee disclosures nigh drug employ. Governments worry well-nigh what constabulary officers and teachers say and do online on their ain time. Even corporate chieftains are finding that their online comments tin run afoul of securities regulators.
The labor board's rulings, which utilise to almost all private sector employers, generally tell companies that information technology is illegal to adopt broad social media policies — like bans on "disrespectful" comments or posts that criticize the employer — if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working weather condition.
But the agency has likewise found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet.
Several cases illustrate the differing standards.
At Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit social services provider in upstate New York, a caseworker threatened to mutter to the dominate that others were not working hard plenty. Another worker, Mariana Cole-Rivera, posted a Facebook bulletin request, "My fellow co-workers, how do you feel?"
Several of her colleagues posted angry, sometimes expletive-laden, responses. "Try doing my chore. I have 5 programs," wrote 1. "What the hell, we don't have a life as is," wrote another.
Image 
Hispanics United fired Ms. Cole-Rivera and four other caseworkers who responded to her, proverb they had violated the company's harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained.
In a 3-to-1 decision last month, the labor board concluded that the caseworkers had been unlawfully terminated. It found that the posts in 2010 were the type of "concerted activity" for "mutual aid" that is expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Deed.
"The board's decision felt like vindication," said Ms. Cole-Rivera, who has since constitute another social work job.
The N.Fifty.R.B. had far less sympathy for a constabulary reporter at The Arizona Daily Star.
Frustrated by a lack of news, the reporter posted several Twitter comments. One said, "What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. ... You're slacking, Tucson." Another began, "You stay homicidal, Tucson."
The newspaper fired the reporter, and lath officials found the dismissal legal, maxim the posts were offensive, not concerted activity and not about working conditions.
The agency also affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois. Unhappy about not receiving a heighten for five years, the bartender posted on Facebook, calling his customers "rednecks" and proverb he hoped they high-strung on glass as they drove home drunk.
Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the "concerted activity" aimed at improving wages and working atmospheric condition that is protected past federal constabulary.
N.50.R.B. officials did non name the reporter or the bartender.
The lath's moves have upset some companies, particularly because it is taking a police enacted in the industrial era, principally to protect workers' right to unionize, and applying information technology to the digital activities of well-nigh all private-sector workers, spousal relationship and nonunion alike.
Brian East. Hayes, the lone dissenter in the Hispanics United instance, wrote that "the five employees were simply venting," not engaged in concerted activity, and therefore were not protected from termination. Rafael O. Gomez, Hispanics United'southward lawyer, said the nonprofit would appeal the board's conclusion, maintaining that the Facebook posts were harassment.
Some corporate officials say the N.50.R.B. is intervening in the social media scene in an effort to remain relevant every bit individual-sector unions dwindle in size and power.
"The board is using new legal theories to expand its power in the workplace," said Randel Yard. Johnson, senior vice president for labor policy at the Usa Sleeping room of Commerce. "It's causing concern and defoliation."
Image
But board officials say they are only adapting the provisions of the National Labor Relations Human action, enacted in 1935, to the 21st century workplace.
The N.L.R.B. is not the just government entity setting new rules well-nigh corporations and social media. On January. 1, California and Illinois became the fifth and sixth states to bar companies from asking employees or job applicants for their social network passwords.
Lewis L. Maltby, president of the National Workrights Constitute, said social media rights were looming larger in the workplace.
He said he was disturbed by a case in which a Michigan advertising agency fired a Web site trainer who also wrote fiction afterward several employees voiced discomfort about racy short stories he had posted on the Web.
"No 1 should exist fired for anything they post that'south legal, off-duty and not job-related," Mr. Maltby said.
As part of the labor lath'southward stepped-up function, its general counsel has issued three reports final that many companies' social media policies illegally hinder workers' exercise of their rights.
The general counsel'south office gave high marks to Wal-Mart'south social policy, which had been revised afterward consultations with the agency. It approved Wal-Mart'due south prohibition of "inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful acquit."
Only in assessing General Motors's policy, the office wrote, "Nosotros constitute unlawful the educational activity that 'offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks are as out of identify online every bit they are offline.' " Information technology added, "This provision proscribes a broad spectrum of communications that would include protected criticisms of the employer'due south labor policies or treatment of employees." A Yard.M. official said the company has asked the lath to reconsider.
In a ruling last September, the lath also rejected as overly broad Costco'due south blanket prohibition against employees' posting things that "damage the company" or "whatever person's reputation." Costco declined to annotate.
Denise M. Keyser, a labor lawyer who advises many companies, said employers should prefer social media policies that are specific rather than impose all-embracing prohibitions.
Practice not just tell workers not to mail confidential information, Ms. Keyser said. Instead, tell them not to disclose, for example, trade secrets, product introduction dates or individual health details.
But placing clear limits on social media posts without crossing the legal line remains difficult, said Steven M. Swirsky, another labor lawyer. "Even when yous review the N.Fifty.R.B. rules and think you're following the mandates," he said, "in that location's even so a good bargain of doubtfulness."
0 Response to "11. Employees' Posts on Social Media May Be Protected Under Labor Law."
Post a Comment