Technology: How to link employer work rules and social media policies
Many employers social media work rules and policies violate the NLRA, causing the NLRB to strike down work rules and policies that it believes pose a threat to employees right to engage in Section 7 protected activities.
February 28, 2014 at 03:00 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Your client is exasperated with what his employees post on social media sites and with having to re-hire Bob despite his negative Facebook posts about management and working conditions. Your client has had it. Despite your many offers to develop a social media policy for his company, your client spontaneously declared at an employee meeting that employees should stop posting anything about work to their social media platforms. Furthermore, if an employee feels they really have something they want to say about work, they should clear the posting with their manager first. This has caused a brouhaha at your client's place of business, and (not surprisingly) resulted in just the opposite of your client's intent — employees have posted all sorts of things to social media about work since the staff meeting. Now what?
The previous three articles in this series addressed employee social media activity, employer responses, and how employers might violate the NLRA by taking action against employees for their social media use in discussing workplace issues. So, what can a prudent employer do to balance the rights of his employees with that of his business? As your client has demonstrated, an outright ban on social media use and clearing posts with management is not the right way to go about it.
Many employers implement work rules or social media policies designed to manage employee social media use and protect the company from legal liability arising out of improper or illegal social media use. A work rule or social media policy provides specific guidelines designed to protect the company's reputation, business relationships, trade secrets, and intellectual property, as well as to minimize liability associated with employees that post harassing, confidential, and/or other inappropriate material concerning the company or the employees. Effective policies provide employers with peace of mind that it officially communicates punishable or terminable offenses when employees violate social media policies, while employees will have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do online.
Unfortunately, many employers' social media work rules and policies have come under the scrutiny of the NLRB, and violate the NLRA causing the NLRB to strike down work rules and policies that it believes pose a threat to employees' right to engage in Section 7 protected activities.
So, how do you know if your company's work rule or social media policy violates employees' Section 7 rights? An employer's work rule violates the NLRA if that rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The NLRB uses a two-step inquiry to determine if a work rule would have such an effect. First, the rule is unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7 activities. If the rule does not explicitly restrict protected activities, then it is unlawful upon a showing that: 1) employees could reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; 2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity, or 3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.
The NLRB found certain categories of social media work rules or policies in violation of the NLRA:
- Lack of specificity, definitions, or specific examples of prohibited acts
- |
- Rule prohibiting communication of “confidential information” on social media sites.
- Rule prohibiting posting of offensive, demeaning, abusive, or inappropriate remarks.
- Failure to exempt protected Section 7 activities
- |
- Rule forbidding posting of statements that are slanderous or detrimental to the company without exempting Section 7 activities.
- Prohibiting or potentially chilling employees' right to organize
- |
- Rule encouraging employees to report any “unusual or inappropriate internal social media activity.”
- Rules prohibiting use of social media on company time
- Prohibiting employee discussions of terms and conditions of employment
- |
- Rule cautioning employees to “think carefully about 'friending' co-workers…on external social media sites.”
- Prohibiting criticisms of employers and/or management
- |
- Rule prohibiting “negative [online] conversations” about managers.
- Prior approval of text by management or the law department
- |
- Rule prohibiting use/posting of the company trademarks without prior approval of the law department.
- Employees prohibited from identifying themselves as an employee of the company on social media platforms without seeking prior approval of the company.
Your client's spontaneous social media policy stated during a staff meeting violated the NLRA, and now, again, he's asking you for assistance in fixing his blunder. Does your company have a social media policy or social media work rules? If so, are any of the categories noted above contained in it? Maybe it's time to review those policies in light of the NLRB's position on social media work rules and policies. Remember, the list above is not all-inclusive of policy areas addressed by the NLRB. You should always seek out counsel familiar with the current law in your jurisdiction to review your social media work rules or policy.
Your client is exasperated with what his employees post on social media sites and with having to re-hire Bob despite his negative Facebook posts about management and working conditions. Your client has had it. Despite your many offers to develop a social media policy for his company, your client spontaneously declared at an employee meeting that employees should stop posting anything about work to their social media platforms. Furthermore, if an employee feels they really have something they want to say about work, they should clear the posting with their manager first. This has caused a brouhaha at your client's place of business, and (not surprisingly) resulted in just the opposite of your client's intent — employees have posted all sorts of things to social media about work since the staff meeting. Now what?
The previous three articles in this series addressed employee social media activity, employer responses, and how employers might violate the NLRA by taking action against employees for their social media use in discussing workplace issues. So, what can a prudent employer do to balance the rights of his employees with that of his business? As your client has demonstrated, an outright ban on social media use and clearing posts with management is not the right way to go about it.
Many employers implement work rules or social media policies designed to manage employee social media use and protect the company from legal liability arising out of improper or illegal social media use. A work rule or social media policy provides specific guidelines designed to protect the company's reputation, business relationships, trade secrets, and intellectual property, as well as to minimize liability associated with employees that post harassing, confidential, and/or other inappropriate material concerning the company or the employees. Effective policies provide employers with peace of mind that it officially communicates punishable or terminable offenses when employees violate social media policies, while employees will have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do online.
Unfortunately, many employers' social media work rules and policies have come under the scrutiny of the NLRB, and violate the NLRA causing the NLRB to strike down work rules and policies that it believes pose a threat to employees' right to engage in Section 7 protected activities.
So, how do you know if your company's work rule or social media policy violates employees' Section 7 rights? An employer's work rule violates the NLRA if that rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The NLRB uses a two-step inquiry to determine if a work rule would have such an effect. First, the rule is unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7 activities. If the rule does not explicitly restrict protected activities, then it is unlawful upon a showing that: 1) employees could reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; 2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity, or 3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.
The NLRB found certain categories of social media work rules or policies in violation of the NLRA:
- Lack of specificity, definitions, or specific examples of prohibited acts
- |
- Rule prohibiting communication of “confidential information” on social media sites.
- Rule prohibiting posting of offensive, demeaning, abusive, or inappropriate remarks.
- Failure to exempt protected Section 7 activities
- |
- Rule forbidding posting of statements that are slanderous or detrimental to the company without exempting Section 7 activities.
- Prohibiting or potentially chilling employees' right to organize
- |
- Rule encouraging employees to report any “unusual or inappropriate internal social media activity.”
- Rules prohibiting use of social media on company time
- Prohibiting employee discussions of terms and conditions of employment
- |
- Rule cautioning employees to “think carefully about 'friending' co-workers…on external social media sites.”
- Prohibiting criticisms of employers and/or management
- |
- Rule prohibiting “negative [online] conversations” about managers.
- Prior approval of text by management or the law department
- |
- Rule prohibiting use/posting of the company trademarks without prior approval of the law department.
- Employees prohibited from identifying themselves as an employee of the company on social media platforms without seeking prior approval of the company.
Your client's spontaneous social media policy stated during a staff meeting violated the NLRA, and now, again, he's asking you for assistance in fixing his blunder. Does your company have a social media policy or social media work rules? If so, are any of the categories noted above contained in it? Maybe it's time to review those policies in light of the NLRB's position on social media work rules and policies. Remember, the list above is not all-inclusive of policy areas addressed by the NLRB. You should always seek out counsel familiar with the current law in your jurisdiction to review your social media work rules or policy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Recent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Wilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
- 2Pass Rate on California's July 2024 Bar Exam Ticks Up to 53.8%
- 3TEST TEST
- 4$5.5M Miami Verdict: Meet the Lawyers Behind the Slip-and-Fall Suit
- 5Dropping a Client Like a 'Hot Potato'
- 6Cobb County Says Over 3K Absentee Ballots Mailed Late, Just Days Before Election
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250