New York Labor and Employment Law Report : New York Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Bond Schoeneck & King Law Firm : NY Labor Relations, Employee Benefits

The main issue in the case was whether the conduct in which the employees had engaged was protected concerted activity within the meaning of the NLRA. Relying on analogous NLRB precedent, the ALJ noted that expressions related to defense of job performance are protected activity. In response to the employer’s argument that the activity was not “concerted” because it was individualized, the ALJ concluded that the activity was concerted because the employees’ Facebook messages were the first step toward group action to defend themselves against accusations they could reasonably believe would be brought to management. The opinion states that: “Employees have a protected right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves. Explicit or implicit criticism by a co-worker of the manner in which they are performing their jobs is a subject about which employee discussion is protected by Section 7. That is particularly true in this case, where at least some of the discriminatees had an expectation that [the complaining co-worker] might take her criticisms to management.”

Finally, the ALJ rejected the employer’s argument that it was merely enforcing its anti-harassment policy. The Judge concluded that the policy, which prohibited harassment based on protected characteristics, was not violated because there was no evidence the complaining co-worker was harassed, and no evidence she was harassed based on one of the protected characteristics listed in the policy.
 

The Division of Advice noted that the test for concerted activity is whether the activity is “engaged in with or on the authority of other employees.” In addition, activity may be deemed concerted when it is the “logical outgrowth of concerns expressed by the employees collectively.” In this case, however, there was no evidence of concerted activity because the posting involved a discussion between the bartender and a non-employee, and there had been no employee meetings over the issues of tipping and raises. Nor did the Facebook communication grow out of any prior communication between employees at the establishment.

In another Advice Memorandum, the Division of Advice concluded that a non-profit residential home lawfully terminated an employee who posted several comments on her Facebook Wall about her work and her patients. According to the Advice memorandum, the employee commented that it was “spooky” working at night in a “mental institution” and that she was unsure if a resident was hearing voices. The Division of Advice found no concerted activity in the postings because they were made solely to non-employees. Moreover, they did not involve any terms and conditions of employment. Rather, the employee was merely communicating to non-employees about what was occurring at work.

Finally, the Division of Advice also issued a Memorandum in a case involving Wal-Mart. According to the memorandum, the employee posted the comment “Wuck Falmart” on her Facebook page. She also commented about “tyranny” in the store, including complaints about an Assistant Manager. Several co-workers responded to the complaints. For example, one thought the comments were humorous and another could not understand why the employee was so “wound up.” The employee received a one day suspension for the posting. The Division of Advice recommended the Board not issue a complaint because the employee was only airing an individual gripe as opposed to a complaint on behalf of others. Because the comments were limited to one person’s issues, there was no group action that could be considered protected concerted activity.

These cases stand in contrast to two cases we reported on earlier where complaints were issued. In those cases, the employees posted critical comments about working conditions, and the complaints involved communication with other employees who shared or supported the substance of the comments.
 

The newspaper suspended and eventually terminated the reporter based on these tweets. The termination notice stated that he had repeatedly disregarded guidance “to refrain from using derogatory comments in any social media forums that may damage the goodwill of the company.” The reporter responded by filing a charge with the Board, alleging that his termination violated his right to engage in protected “concerted activity for the purpose of…mutual aid and protection” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which can include speech about the terms and conditions of employment. The case was submitted to the General Counsel’s Division of Advice for an opinion as to whether the termination had violated the Act.

In its Advice Memorandum, the Division of Advice found no violation because the reporter was terminated “for writing inappropriate and offensive Twitter postings that did not involve protected concerted activity.” In finding the tweets to be neither protected nor concerted, the Division of Advice noted they neither dealt with the terms and conditions of employment nor attempted to involve others in any employment-related issues. Significantly, the Division of Advice acknowledged that several warnings by management to the reporter against making negative public comments about the newspaper could be interpreted as unlawfully restricting Section 7 rights. The statements did not rise to the level of “orally promulgated, overbroad rules”, however, because they were communicated solely to the complaining reporter in the context of discipline and in response to specific misconduct, and were not communicated to other employees or published as new rules.

In contrast, earlier this month, the Board’s Regional Director for Region 3 issued a complaint against a not-for-profit organization, Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc., in a case where several workers were allegedly discharged for postings made on one of the worker’s Facebook pages. There, unlike the Arizona Daily Star case, the communication at issue apparently contained direct references to employee terms and conditions of employment. According to a public statement about the case issued by the Board, one employee posted on her Facebook page a co-worker’s comments which were critical of employee performance generally. Other employees then responded to that post with comments which complained about workload and staffing issues. The employer discharged those employees, contending their comments were harassment of the co-worker mentioned in the initial post. The complaint alleges that the postings were protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA because they involved communications between co-workers about their terms and conditions of employment, including job performance and staffing levels.

As these two cases show, the application of federal labor law to employer-promulgated social media policies and rules is a new and rapidly evolving area of law. In fact, the Board’s Acting General Counsel recently issued a memorandum instructing all Regional Directors to submit all cases involving employer social media policies to the Division before taking any action because of the absence of precedent in the area and the policy issues involved. Given the Board’s heightened interest in safeguarding employees’ Section 7 rights against overbroad social media policies and the relatively uncharted territory at play, employers should seek the assistance of counsel before implementing or disciplining employees under such policies.
 

AMR’s Employee Handbook included a Blogging and Internet Posting Policy that prohibited employees from: (1) posting pictures of themselves which depict AMR in any way unless written approval from the Vice President of Corporate Communications is granted; and (2) making “disparaging, discriminatory, or defamatory comments when discussing the Company or the employee’s superiors, co-workers and/or competitors.” According to the NLRB complaint, an AMR employee named Dawnmarie Souza (“Ms. Souza”) “engaged in concerted activities with other employees” on November 8, 2009, by criticizing her supervisor on her Facebook page. According to a press release issued by the NLRB that accompanied its filing of the complaint, Ms. Souza’s criticism of her supervisor drew supportive responses from her co-workers, which resulted in Ms. Souza making additional negative comments about her supervisor on her Facebook page. Ms. Souza was discharged from her employment with AMR on or about December 1, 2009.

In the complaint, the NLRB alleges that AMR interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in protected concerted activities, by promulgating its Blogging and Internet Posting Policy and by discharging Ms. Souza. The NLRB also alleges that AMR discriminated against Ms. Souza for her protected concerted activity by discharging her. According to the NLRB’s press release, the NLRB is taking the position that AMR’s Blogging and Internet Posting Policy contains unlawful provisions, including: (1) the provision that prohibits employees from making disparaging remarks about AMR or supervisors of AMR; and (2) the provision that prohibits employees from depicting AMR in any way without permission.

The NLRB’s position regarding the unlawfulness of AMR’s social networking policy appears to signify a departure from a recent opinion issued by the NLRB General Counsel’s Division of Advice on December 4, 2009. In that opinion, the Division of Advice considered an employer’s social networking policy that prohibited, among other things, “disparagement of company’s or competitors’ products, services, executive leadership, employees, strategy, and business prospects.” The Division of Advice concluded that the policy, as written, was lawful because employees could not reasonably construe the policy as prohibiting the types of concerted activities protected by the NLRA. The Division of Advice also found no evidence that the policy was promulgated in response to union organizing activity or was applied for the purpose of discouraging union organizing activity.

Although a hearing has not yet been held in the AMR case and a decision has not yet been rendered, the issuance of a complaint in that case indicates that the NLRB will closely scrutinize employer policies that potentially restrict an employee’s right to discuss terms and conditions of employment through social networking sites. Accordingly, all employers (regardless of whether their employees are unionized or not) should take this opportunity to review their social networking policies, and amend those policies to ensure that there is no language that could reasonably be construed by employees as prohibiting concerted activities relating to terms and conditions of employment. Employers who are contemplating the promulgation of a social networking policy should make sure to craft the language of the policy carefully to reduce the risk that the NLRB will find the policy to be an unlawful restriction on employee rights.
 

One of the first things to consider in drafting a social networking policy is whether to allow employees to access the sites through the use of the employer’s technology, such as computer and email systems or handheld devices, and whether access will be permitted during work time. The answer to these questions may depend upon the nature of the employer’s business and whether there are business-related reasons for employees to use the sites.

A social networking policy should also prohibit inappropriate postings on, or the inappropriate use of the sites, and should advise employees what is considered inappropriate. Defining the line between appropriate and inappropriate, however, may be the most difficult challenge, particularly for those employers employing a relatively young workforce. Examples of inappropriate postings include comments and complaints that are disparaging to the employer, or the disclosure of an employer’s proprietary or confidential information or of any information that is protected by law. Employers should also consider whether to forbid employees from posting any information about the employer, or if certain information would be permissible with the employer’s prior approval. Employees should generally not be allowed to speak on behalf of their employer, unless specifically authorized to do so. See our January 27, 2010 post.

In defining what constitutes impermissible conduct under the policy, employers must use caution to avoid infringing on employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The policy cannot be drafted in a way that employees would reasonably construe as prohibiting discussion of wages, hours, and working conditions. A policy which prohibits and specifically describes a broad range of inappropriate communication is less likely to run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act.

Because enforcing a social networking policy can be difficult, the policy should require employees to report known violations to the human resources office or a member of management. As with other key policies, employees should be told that it is their “responsibility” to help the employer ensure compliance with the policy. The potential consequences of a violation of the policy should also be described. This can be as simple as a warning that an employee may be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge.

Once developed, the policy should be distributed to all employees, who should be required to acknowledge in writing that they have received it. The policy should be redistributed to employees periodically.

A social networking policy is most effective when developed in conjunction with a policy governing employee use of technology belonging to the employer. A policy of this kind should be designed to lower employees’ expectations of privacy when using the employer’s technology by including language stating that the employer reserves the right to access, intercept and monitor all information accessed, sent, or received through the employer’s systems. Employers should also obtain the express consent of employees both to monitor communications and to access stored communications. This is best accomplished by requiring employees to sign written consent forms. Alternatively, an employer can establish that employees have consented to the monitoring and accessing of communications by requiring them to click on a pop-up screen acknowledging consent to the employer’s policies before access is granted to the employer’s computer systems.

Even with a well-drafted social networking policy in place, investigating potential violations, such as an allegation that an employee has posted something inappropriate on a site, can be challenging. It may be difficult to verify that the alleged misconduct occurred because the information may be posted on a secured site not accessible to the public or it may be deleted before the investigation has been completed. If the posting was prepared or accessed using technology belonging to the employer, an employee’s consent to access that information could be obtained through the type of technology use policy discussed above.

If the employer’s technology was not used, it may be impossible to view the posting without the employee’s consent. In that scenario, an employer may have no recourse other than to simply question the employee about the posting, and to speak to any co-workers who may have seen it. Employers should hesitate before asking employees for their personal log-in information. Aliases or similar surreptitious means to access a secured site should not be used, and an employer should take steps to protect an employee’s privacy in the investigation.

If an investigation concludes that an employee has violated the social networking policy, appropriate discipline should be considered, but an employer should use caution when meting out discipline. Public employers should also be aware that the First Amendment may protect an employee who speaks on what is considered to be a matter of public concern.