Advertisement

May 19, 2013

NLRB General Counsel Issues Further Guidance on Social Media Policies

As we noted in our August 25, 2011 Update, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is closely scrutinizing employer social media policies in cases before it to see if such policies unlawfully restrict employees’ exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”). Both unionized and union-free employers are impacted by the NLRB’s actions in this regard.

Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to engage in concerted activity concerning issues that affect or relate to their terms and conditions of employment. Social media policies violate the Act if such would “reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their rights” under the Act, including the right to engage in protected concerted activity. Thus, a social media policy that explicitly restricts these rights (for example, by forbidding employees from discussing their wages or other benefits with other employees) would violate the Act. Similarly, social media policies will be found to be unlawful if it is determined that (a) an employee would reasonably construe the language of the policy to prohibit protected concerted activity;(b) the rule was promulgated in response to protected concerted activity; or (c) the rule was applied in such a manner as to restrict protected concerted activity.

Obviously, whether a social media policy violates the Act is a very fact-specific determination and will depend upon the exact language used in the policy. In August 2011 and January 2012, the NLRB’s actinggeneral counsel issued reports summarizing Advice Memoranda in cases involving social media. While Advice Memoranda do not have the force of law, they provide a view as to how the NLRB’s generalcounsel analyzes social media issues under the Act.

In a further effort to clarify his position, the acting general counsel on May 30, 2012 issued a third report on social media issues. In the report, the acting general counsel discussed six recent cases in which he found that employer social media policies were overly broad, and thus unlawful under the Act since the policies did or reasonably could restrict employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. Examples of policies found to violate the Act include:

  • a policy restricting the release of confidential guest, employee or company information, since it did not make clear that employees have the right to discuss their wages and benefits;
  • a policy prohibiting offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks, since the policy could be interpreted to proscribe protected communications about an employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees;
  • a prohibition on commenting on any legal matters involving the employer (including pending litigation), since this could restrict employees from discussing potential claims they may have against the employer;
  • a policy requiring employees to notify management of any unsolicited or inappropriate electronic communications received from fellow employees or outsiders, since such a rule would restrict an employee’s right to communicate with fellow employees or an outside entity such as a union about their terms and conditions of employment.

Given the scrutiny of social media policies by the NLRB, employers should review with counsel their existing policies, and consult with counsel before drafting a new policy or disciplining employees for violations of social media policies.

© 2013 Schiff Hardin LLP

About the Author

Partner

Henry W. Sledz Jr. concentrates his practice in representing management, encompassing all aspects of employment law, from labor agreement negotiations and arbitrations to litigation before numerous state and federal courts and agencies. This includes a particular emphasis on food and dairy industry clients.

Mr. Sledz also has significant experience in public sector labor law, representing villages, school districts, colleges and universities in labor negotiations, arbitrations and general counseling.

312.258.5525

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.