Nlb Impact On Social Media

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawnmarie stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawnmarie besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawn stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawn besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

Though the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) strives to protect the employee’s rights. Still the employers terminate the employees either legally or illegally while considering their social media posts, with great serendipity. A decision issued by the NLRB board, after detailing the cases in Acting General Counsel memos on September 28, 2012. The salesman was fired from his job a week after posting the photos of an embarrassing car accident while selling the products on Facebook. The act made by the salesman was devastating the company’s service, and was neither concerned, nor protected by the NLRB, led him to lose his job (NLRB 2015).

The case that I have chosen for this case study is Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. & Carlos Ortiz, Case No. 3-CA-2787). In this case the NLRB reinstates five employees that were terminated for engaging in protected concerted activity on social media. Hispanics United of Buffalo involved several non-union employees who complained about a coworker on Facebook.

In addition, businesses should offer an example of a blog that would bring about justifiable cause for termination. Support from human resources in this way can assist in avoiding the high cost associated with employee turnover. Terminations and disciplinary actions that are related to the blogging of negative ethical issues through social networking possibly could be avoided also. Valentine, et.al (2010)

Employees started to exchange their frustration about Cruz-Moore’s criticism. A director of HUB soon followed up with the Facebook post. Cruz-Moore commented on Cole-Rivera’s post “stop with your lies about me”, She then brought the entire Facebook exchange to the executive director’s attention (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). The employees who were involved were terminated for bulling and harassment of Cruz-Moore. Cruz-Moore had suffered a heart attack as a result of this incident. The NLRB ruled that HUB violated the NLRA by discharging the five employees, because the employees were engaged in protected concerted activities for the “purpose of mutual aid or protection” under Section 7.167 (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). Employers were ordered to reinstate employees with back pay because the discharges were motivated by the employee’s protected concerted activity.

Employees cannot engage in any social media comment, private messaging, video, or picture that would be characterized as individual complaint specific to the employee or not intended to induce a group action.

As a result the employees where reminded that this was a HIPAA violation even though they did not use names there was still enough information that you could put it together. Which resulted in stricter policies and prohibitions regarding staff use of social media. (Dimick, 2015)

In 2012, Janis E. Roberts sued her former employer (CareFlite) for what she reasoned was an invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. CareFlite argues that Roberts was terminated for what they deemed as “unprofessional and insubordinate” (CITE THE CASE) activity posted on her Facebook. Roberts was working as a paramedic and she posted a comment on her coworker Schoenhardt’s page claiming that she “wanted to slap the patient” (CITE THE CASE) who was deemed to require restraining. An officer from Careflite noticed the post and the officer sent Roberts a message regarding the fact that the public can see her post and encourages Roberts to delete it. After Roberts responded to the officer’s message with an aggressive tone, Roberts deleted her original post that contained the “slap” comment. After this occurred, Roberts sent her coworker and email of the exchange of the messages between her and the compliance officer. However, Roberts

The NLRB has made findings regarding the use of employee posts on Social Media sites to discipline or terminate those employees. Typically these cases occur when an employee posts “negative” information about their current employer or boss. Sometimes these are “public” and other times the employer uses “spies” or “fake friending” to see the Facebook page of the employee.

Although the Privacy Act and PIPEDA exist to regulate what personal information is collected in order to protect the employee, these legal means are not enough. The common thread between the two is that the information collected should be collected and used for the stated purposes. The Privacy Act applies to federal institutions, whereas PIPEDA applies to the private-sector, yet neither specifically state social media. As mentioned in this article, the person’s privacy rights should not end simply because the technological advancements are not incorporated into our legislation. However, privacy laws should be able to incorporate social media as it is one of society’s most common method of communication. As society changes, our laws should accommodate. I believe the current criteria are not specific enough, if just cause can be proven and if there is no discrimination, that is seen to be enough for termination. I think that the better option would be the proposal set in this article.

So I ask, is it right or wrong ethical for employer to access employee’s social media page? One con of this is that an employee may not be able to express themselves without the fear of being dismissed. From the selection “Fired up or just fired,” Rhonda has an explanation and research results on cons of the connectivity of having employers as “friend”, “recent study of companies with 1,000 employees found that 8% of their employees have actually been dismissed for their

Under the first amendment this is true, it may be argued he had the right to post to his own page. Then we fall into a grey area which is hard to discern. Tryon is allowed to post to his social media, however he should be keeping anything that has to do with his employer off social media. When working with company the employee has a loyalty to maintain the status quo. Issues in the workplace can be dealt with, but they should not be posted about on social media.

Peter Oiler’s termination from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an obvious violation of his employee rights. Though balancing employee rights with proper discipline is a constant challenge for HR professionals. But in this case of Oiler, the work place behavior of the employer had not changed and there is no problem, with the co-employers also. Also in the own time, the company have no rights about the way he dress. Hence there is also no such challenge for the Winn-Dixie that it has to terminate Oiler. Hence I would consider that Winn-Dixie has violated the employee rights of Oiler. Also his social