Tuesday morning, the Chief Executive Officer for Jackson Miller Properties inspected her daily mail. In it was a letter from Attorney Malik Davis, a well-known local lawyer specializing in employment law. He is writing on behalf of two clients: Mr. Matt Evans and Ms. Jennifer Dawson. He requests a meeting to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made for these two terminated employees before they file charges with the NLRB, saying they were terminated unlawfully. Section 8(a)1 will be cited for the violation.* In preparation for the meeting, the CEO asks the HR Director for a briefing on each case. She wants to know:
The employee's argument is that that was his Facebook page and that it was none of their business. Jack also argued that he was not thinking anything when he was posting the photos.
The employee thinks he was terminated for posting the events at the luxury launch at his individual Facebook account and page.
The specific provision in the NLRA that was broken in his view was the provision by the NLRA to offer protection to the rights of employees to act together to address conditions at work with or without a union. The protection extends to specific work-related conversations performed on social media like Facebook.
The facts, in this case, do not support the employee's position that his termination was unlawful. This is because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of workers to act together so as to address conditions at work with or without a union (Hill, 2011). The protection extends to certain work related conversations carried out on Facebook as well as other social media. The employee engaged in unprotected activity because he was posting photos of the luxury event and the truck dealership other than discussing terms of employment with fellow employees hence it was unlawful.
The employer's argument was that because the employee handbook has not been updated from 2007. It has been in the process of updating as well as amending it for various months. It said that it expects to have the finalized draft to the employees in a month's time. The employer argued that it pointed out that courtesy was the main area where significant change was being made.
The employer fired the employee because the employee had made negative comments about the company in a public Facebook forum and he had also made light on the internet of a severe incident which involved a truck that had jumped the curbing and ending up in the pond. This embarrassed the employers and had to terminate the employee.
The NLRA prohibits the employee to post anything that portrays the company as bad. It also prohibits posting non-concerted activity.
The NLRA requires that an employee any posting by the employee should be centered at criticizing the employer as well as vocalizing their sentiments and not posting the activities that go on in a company (Hassan, 2011). Hence the employer was right to terminate the employee's employment terms because he violated the NLRA provisions by posting things that could tarnish the company's image. The employee also violated the company's policy and the topic on courtesy which stated that each one was expected to be courteous as well as polite and friendly to the customers the vendors and the suppliers. The policy points out that no single individual should disrespectfully use a language that injures the image of the dealership.
As an NLRB Judge, I think the employer is right. This is because the employer had a policy in their employee handbook on courtesy which pointed out that every individual was expected to be courteous as well as polite and friendly to the customers, suppliers as well as vendors. The employee was demonstrated a lack of politeness and courtesy by posting the photos of the luxury event and truck dealership ("The NLRB and Social Media", n.d.). The employee also used a language that tarnished the image of the dealership by posting about the company in a Facebook post as well as made light on the internet concerning a serious incident where a truck had jumped the curbing and ended up in a pond.
The employee violated the NLRA by posting unprotected activity and also never took into consideration the employee handbook that contains language which makes it unlawful. Hence the employer should rescind the policy and notify the other employees.
References
Hassan, S. (2011). The NLRB's Evolving Stance on Regulating Employee Social Media Use.
Hill, K. (2011). When You Can and Can't Fire Employees For Social Media Misbehavior.
The NLRB and Social Media.
****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****
Tuesday morning, the Chief Executive Officer for Jackson Miller Properties inspected her daily mail. In it...
Case 2: Going to The X-Stream Gil Reihana is the chief executive officer of X-Stream, an Auckland-based company that assembles personal computers for the New Zealand and Australian markets, and sells them through a number of chain stores and independent retailers. He started the company six years ago, at the age of 25, after graduating from university with a Bachelor’s degree in Information Technology and Management. To establish the company, Reihana invested $300 000 he had inherited and persuaded various...