The New York Times reports on a landmark case that is going to the next level as the National Labor Relations Board climbs into the ring over an alleged firing of an EMT regarding Facebook posts about their supervisor
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.
The labor relations board announced last week that it had filed a complaint against an ambulance service, American Medical Response of Connecticut, that fired an emergency medical technician, accusing her, among other things, of violating a policy that bars employees from depicting the company “in any way” on Facebook or other social media sites in which they post pictures of themselves.
Ok class, repeat after me “No matter what the courts say, don’t ever do anything in your online life that could come back to bite you in the behind!”. Sure there will be plenty of harping about how this activity is to be protected blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, it requires a little self-control and self-monitoring for people to realize that even though the courts may find it legal to do so, you just don’t say stupid stuff in your online life. Even if you keep your job it still impacts you so why do it?
The larger implications of this case could be around the policy that the company had in place for social media that will be argued as too restrictive.
The labor board said the company’s Facebook rule was “overly broad” and improperly limited employees’ rights to discuss working conditions among themselves.
Moreover, the board faulted another company policy, one prohibiting employees from making “disparaging” or “discriminatory” “comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors” and “co-workers.”
In essence the employee had a beef with her supervisor then took her complaints to her Facebook page where other employees chimed in. For the record, she called her supervisor a “17” which is an EMT code referring to a psych patient or issue. This then became a concerted effort (in other words not just a solo rant) and as a result became protected because co-workers are allowed to talk amongst themselves about their work.
This stuff turns real grey real quick though because if a mention about that supervisor can be seen as stepping outside the lines of work related issues then the protections could go away. In a rather disturbing scenario the NYT says
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.
Whoa! Hey if you are having sexual relations with your supervisor breaking the company social media rules are the least of your worries!
At any rate, this case will be worth keeping an eye on because the implications of any precedent setting ruling can run far and wide. As a result, all businesses need to be on top of this kind of legal assessment of just what activities warrant action from a company or just need to be left alone for fear of legal backlash.
Let’s face it, most things in this world are unsafe for many people because lawyers like to sue people so they can make a living. It’s a matter of just how well versed the business community stays on this subject that will determine just how close any business is to a lawsuit at any given moment.