Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Corporate, take note: NLRB says firm illegally fired worker who criticized her supervisor on Facebook

In a story with particular significance for Corporate and to readers of Gannett Blog and other social networks, The New York Times is reporting the following this morning:

In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.

Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”

10 comments:

  1. THe NLRB deals with Unions and Union contracts. This is not the law of the land, just the law of Union lemmings. Get real! I wonder what the NLRB would say about a supervisor doing the same thing about one of their "Hard working" union employees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 12:40 p.m.: Read the full story, and you'll see the following, regarding the National Labor Relations Act:

    "That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization."

    Note: Whether you nion or non-union.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, this is from the NLRB's website:

    "The National Labor Relations Board protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions."

    ReplyDelete
  4. WOW. Great news.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wrong. This is a decision about a Union worker. You can spin it any way you want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous 12:40 and 12:49 can't read or is just stubborn. Must be a supervisor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The case involves Dawnmarie Souza, who had to prepare a response to a customer’s complaint about her work. Ms. Souza, the board said, was unhappy that her supervisor would not let a representative of the Teamsters, the union representing the company’s workers, help prepare her response.

    Ms. Souza then mocked her supervisor on Facebook, using several vulgarities to ridicule him, according to Jonathan Kreisberg, director of the board’s Hartford office, which filed the complaint. He also said she had written, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” — 17 is the company’s lingo for a psychiatric patient.

    The labor board said that her comments “drew supportive responses from her co-workers” and led to further negative comments about the supervisor. Mr. Kreisberg said: “You’re allowed to talk about your supervisor with your co-workers. You’re allowed to communicate the concerns and criticisms you have. The only difference in this case is she did it on Facebook and did it on her own time and her own computer.”

    An administrative law judge is scheduled to begin hearing the case on Jan. 25. Marshall B. Babson, a member of the National Labor Relations Board in the 1980s, said a broad company rule that says one cannot make disparaging comments about supervisors is clearly illegal under labor law. But he said an employee’s criticizing a company or supervisor on Facebook was not necessarily protected activity.

    “There will arguably be cases where it is not concerted activity,” Mr. Babson said, suggesting that if a worker lashed out in a post against a supervisor but was not communicating with co-workers, that type of comment might not be protected.

    If the Facebook conversation involves several co-workers, however, it is far more likely to be viewed as “concerted protected activity,” he said.

    But employees might cross the line into unprotected territory if they disparage supervisors over something unrelated to work — for instance, a supervisor’s sexual performance — or if their statements are disloyal.

    Courts often view workers’ statements as disloyal when they are defamatory and are not supported by facts. Mr. Babson cited a case upholding the firing of airline workers who held signs saying their airline was unsafe. But, he said, if employees held signs accurately saying their airline or restaurant had been cited for dozens of safety violations, that would most likely be protected.

    It is about a union worker. The ruling will be overturned at a higher level.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ooops did Jim forget to say the worker in question was a Teamster? Good reporting Jim

    ReplyDelete
  9. More reason to organize, IMHO. Workers today need protection now more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, it's about a union employee. Jim was pointing out that what the NLRB does applies not just to union employees. It's early, and we don't know what longterm effect will be, of course.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.