NLRB Slams Non-Union Firm for Firing Employees Over Facebook Comments

By Eric B. Meyer 近期，非公会组织成员美国康涅狄格州的一位救护公司，因为员工在Facebook上发泄对于上司的不满，而解雇了该员工，这一事件引起了NLRB美国劳资委员会强烈不满，认为这种解雇行为是不合法行为，最终引发了该委员会对于非公会组织领导企业的监管问题的思考。

Earlier this year, reports of a Connecticut ambulance company firing an employee who had complained about her supervisor on Facebook, grabbed the headlines. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complained that the firing was illegal. And although the company contended that it did nothing wrong, free speech advocates spewed hellfire and brimstone. Ultimately, the bloodlust subsided when that case settled. Several months later, the NLRB is at it again. However, this time, for the first time, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) has found, after a full hearing, that an employer unlawfully fired employees for Facebook postings. Oh, by the way, the employer involved is non-union. More on this important decision and what it means for private employers after the jump. Right to free speech vs. right to engage in concerted activity Before I dispense with the facts of the case, I need to dispel a popular misconception. Employees in the private sector have no constitutional right to free speech. Period. Employees in either union or union-free businesses do, however, have the right to engage in concerted activity. Concerted activities are those engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by or on behalf of the employee himself. Put simply, concerted activity is a call to action. Examples include two or more employees: (a) addressing their employer about improving their working conditions and pay; or (b) discussing pay or other work-related issues with each other. Even individual action can be concerted so long as it is engaged in which the object of initiating or inducing group action. If an employer disciplines an employee for engaging in concerted activity, that employer union or non-union has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). What did the employer do and where did it go wrong? The facts of Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. boil down to these few: Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. is a non-union employer; Employee 2 posts a complaint about Employee 1 on Facebook; Employees 3, 4, 5, and 6 comment on the post and, in doing so, complain about working conditions; The Facebook comments are largely sarcastic and include profanity; and The company fires Employees 2-6 solely for their Facebook comments. According to the Administrative Law Judge, the behavior of Employees 2-6 constituted protected concerted activity because they had exercised their right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves whether at the water-cooler or online. It did not matter that Employees 2-6 were not trying to change their working conditions and that they did not communicate their concerns to their employer. Their activities were nonetheless protected. Therefore, the employer may not discipline them for taking those actions. A few takeaways from this case Before employers everywhere complain that the sky is falling, here are three points to help regain some perspective. Individual employees don t have carte blanche to talk smack online. See this previous post. One employee merely griping about his employer does not reach the level of protected concerted activity. Be wary, however, when a group of employees engage in an online dialogue about the workplace. And when you fire all of them together, look out. Employees who break the law generally don t get saved by the protected concerted activity defense. For example, those who use Facebook to unlawfully discriminate or harass cannot be saved by claiming that those posts constitute protected concerted activity. The law is just beginning to develop. Understatement of the year. This is the first case decided on the issue of Facebook firings in the context of concerted activity. While employers should take note and learn from it, I can t imagine it will be too long before an NLRB decision is appealed to a federal court. We ll see what happens then. However, let s emphasize again that the National Labor Relations Act applies to union and non-union employers alike. It just so happens that it is more likely that the NLRB will get involved in the union setting because the union will have filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. However, if that same charge is filed in a non-union workplace, the NLRB will get involved as it did here. This was originally published on Eric B. Meyer s blog, The Employer Handbook. About the writer: Eric B. Meyer is a partner in the Labor and Employment Group of the Philadelphia-based law firm of Dilworth Paxson LLP . He dedicates his practice to litigating and assisting employers on labor and employment issues affecting the workplace, including collective bargaining, discrimination, employee handbook policies, enforcement of restrictive covenants, and trade secret protection. Eric also serves as a volunteer mediator for the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Contact him at 【邮箱已隐去】 . 管理新知 您可能感兴趣的文章 5 Secrets to Effective Recruiting 2013-10-24 HR微语—绩效管理的终极目标是什么？

2013-04-17 “我”还是“我们”，独立与协作如何平衡？

2015-05-15 最近文章 TEST 2018年01月15日 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？

2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？

2018年01月15日 因利益冲突，Facebook COO和Twitter CEO退出迪士尼董事会 2018年01月15日 热门文章 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？

2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？

2018年01月15日 2017年度职场出差行程调查，出差最多的居然是他们！！

2018年01月12日 员工在自己QQ空间评论HR经理吃屎，可辞退他吗？

2018年01月11日 扫一扫 加微信【已隐去】 关于沙龙 顾问委员 广告推广 隐私安全 联系我们 申请vip会员 支付方式 市场合作或广告投放 电话：【电话已隐去】 邮件：【邮箱已隐去】 在线QQ【已隐去】 VIP会员 企业VIP会员 机构VIP会员 广告刊例 商务合作 Follow HRSalon