June 26, 2014

Supreme Court invalidates President’s NLRB recess appointments

Posted in Collective Bargaining, National Labor Relations Act, Posting Requrements, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , at 1:52 pm by Tom Jacobson

In a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court today struck down as unconstitutional President Barack Obama’s January, 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The decision calls into question the validity of hundreds of decisions made by the NLRB from January, 2012 to August, 2013.

The case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, involved the NLRB’s determination that Noel Canning had committed unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. Noel Canning challenged the NLRB’s authority to make such a determination on the basis that the board itself was improperly constituted at the time of its decision.  Specifically, Noel Canning argued that President Obama’s three appointments to the board in January, 2012 were unconstitutional because he made them without the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court sided with Noel Canning.

The fallout from the high court’s decision is uncertain, but it could mean that hundreds of decisions made by the NLRB while the board was unconstitutionally composed will be invalidated.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

Advertisements

January 22, 2013

Updating employee handbooks: now is the time

Posted in Acknowledgment, Arrest records, At-will Employment, Background Checking, Computer Use, Confidential Information, Conviction Records, Criminal History, Disclaimers, Employee Handbooks, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Hiring and Recruiting, Internet Policies, Interviewing, Leaves of Absence, Leaves of Absence, Minnesota Parenting Leave Act, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , , , , , , at 10:47 am by Tom Jacobson

employee handbook1I recently had the privilege of speaking at and moderating a day-long seminar covering recent developments in employment law. Although the topics ranged broadly from background checks to the basics of employee leave, one common theme emerged: employers who have not kept their employee handbooks and other policies up to date are running the increased risk of liability for legal claims brought by their employees.

For example:

  • Some commonly used “at-will” employment acknowledgments, confidentiality clauses, investigation practices, and social medial policies have been deemed to violate the National Labor Relations Act.
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published guidance on how arrest and conviction records may be used when performing background checks on applicants or employees. Among other things, these guidelines address when an individualized assessment of an applicant’s or employee’s arrest or conviction record should be done.
  • One recent litigation trend is employers and employees (or former employees)  fighting over the ownership of social media accounts and followers.
  • Recent court decisions have broadly interpreted employees’ rights to parenting leave under Minnesota law.
  • At least four states (California, Illinois, Maryland and Michigan) have adopted laws regulating employers’ access to employees’ social media sites, and similar legislation has been proposed in Minnesota.

What you need to know: If your employee handbooks and policies have not been reviewed by legal counsel and updated recently, now is the time. For more information about this process, please contact me at 320-763-3141 or taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2013 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

November 9, 2012

January 16, 2013 Employment Law Update Announced

Posted in Acknowledgment, Age, Arrest records, At-will Employment, Background Checking, Color, Conviction Records, Criminal History, Disability, Disclaimers, Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Gender / Sex, Harassment, Hiring and Recruiting, Interactive Process, Leaves of Absence, National Labor Relations Act, National Origin, Posting Requirements, Posting Requrements, Protected Concerted Activity, Race, Reasonable Accommodation, Religion, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Sick Leave, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Workplace Posters tagged , , , , at 10:28 am by Tom Jacobson

Need continuing education credits?  Want to keep up to date on the latest developments in employment law?  If so, here’s an opportunity for you.

I’ll be moderating Lorman’s Employment Law Update in Fargo, North Dakota on January 16, 2013. The day-long event has been approved for 6.5 hours of HRCI and CLE credit, 1.0 hour of HRPD credit, and 8.0 hours of CPE credit.

In interested, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com, or click here for more information or to register.

I hope to see you in Fargo on January 13!

P.S. Don’t forget to ask me about a discount on the registration fee!

October 5, 2012

NLRB Rules in Favor of Employer in its First Facebook Firing Case, Strikes down “Courtesy” Policy

Posted in Computer Use, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , , , , , , , , at 8:58 am by Tom Jacobson

In its first decision in a case involving allegations of a firing over Facebook postings, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled in favor of the employer. In the same decision, the Board struck down the employer’s “Courtesy” policy.

The dispute centered mainly around two Facebook postings by a salesman for Knauz BMW in Lake Bluff, IL. In one, he posted sarcastic comments and photos of a Land Rover after it was driven by a customer’s 13-year old child over a wall and into a pond at an adjacent dealership. In the other post, he criticized Knauz for serving hot dogs and water at a luxury car sales event. He was fired a week later. The primary issue in the case became whether he was fired because of the Land Rover photos or because of his criticism of the dealership.

According to the NLRB, being fired for criticizing the dealership may have violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA protects the group actions of employees who are discussing or trying to improve their terms and conditions of employment. It also protects individual employees if they are acting on behalf of the group. Here, the NLRB said that because the Facebook criticism “involved co-workers who were concerned about the effect of the low-cost food on the image of the dealership and, ultimately, their sales and commissions,” being fired for those comments may have violated the NLRA.

However, the NRLB also noted that posting the Land Rover photos was not protected by the NLRA. This is because they were “[P]osted solely by [the employee], apparently as a lark, without any discussion with any other employee of the [dealership], and had no connection to any of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment.”

The administrative law judge who tried the case, Joel P. Biblowitz, found that the salesman was fired because of the Land Rover photos and not because of the Facebook criticism. The NLRB agreed with Judge Biblowitz and, therefore, affirmed that the dealership did not violate the NLRA when it fired the salesman.

Another issue in the case was the following “Courtesy” policy at Knauz:

Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every
employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite
and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as
well as to their fellow employees. No one should be
disrespectful or use profanity or any other language
which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.

The three-member panel split 2-1 on whether this policy violated the NLRA. The majority ruled that it did. Their reasoning was that employees may have reasonably believed that the policy prohibited any protests or criticisms, even those protected by the NLRA. The dissenting judge interpreted the rule as “nothing more than a common-sense behavioral guideline for employees” and was not “a restriction on the content of conversations (such as a prohibition against discussion of wages)”.

What you need to know: Because the NLRB ruled that the salesman was fired for a non-protected reason (posting the sarcastic Land Rover photos), the Board did not rule on whether the criticism posted on Facebook was actually protected by the NLRA. The NLRB is likely to rule on that issue in future cases. In the meantime, the boundaries of what kinds of social media commentary are protected by the NLRA remain unclear. Therefore, employees should use care when posting work-related commentary on Facebook, and employers should use care when considering whether to take action based on such postings. In addition, employers should re-evaluate any “courtesy” rules to make sure they do not violate their employees’ rights under the NLRA.

For more information about this article or how to address social media issues in the workplace, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

July 18, 2012

Is your at-will employment policy at risk?

Posted in Acknowledgment, At-will Employment, Collective Bargaining, Contracts, Disclaimers, Disclaimers, Employee Handbooks, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity tagged , , , , , , , , at 10:39 am by Tom Jacobson

At-will employment is perceived as a sacred cow for most employers, but in a pair of recent cases the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has successfully challenged the at-will employment policies of two U.S. employers.

Generally speaking, at-will employment is the concept that employees are employed for no particular duration. This means that either the at-will employee or his/her employer may end their employment relationship at any time, with or without notice, and with or without cause. The vast majority of Minnesota employees are at-will employees. The polar opposite of at-will employment is employment subject to contractual terms, such as a union contract.

When improperly written, employee handbooks and similar written policies can be interpreted as contracts which, contrary to the at-will concept, give employees the right to continued employment, pre-termination disciplinary actions and/or other protections. Thus, to preserve the at-will relationship, astute employers include in their employee handbooks and other policy documentation language disclaiming any contractual relationship and confirming the at-will status.

These types of disclaimers were recently challenged by the NLRB in the cases of Hyatt Hotels Corporation and American Red Cross Arizona Blood Services Region. The Hyatt case involved an acknowledgment form which indicated that the employees’ at-will status could not be altered except by a written statement signed by the employee and specified company executives. Similarly, the American Red Cross case involved a disclaimer which stated that the employees’ at-will status could not be amended, modified or altered in any way.

The NLRB argued that these limitations on how the employees’ at-will status could be changed were unlawful interference with the employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity, such as collective bargaining. The Hyatt case was settled when Hyatt agreed, among other things, to discontinue using the challenged language in its acknowledgment form. The American Red Cross case resulted in the NLRB issuing an order compelling the employer to cease and desist from using the disputed language in its forms.

What you need to know: To preserve the at-will employment relationship, employee handbooks and related policy documentation must include appropriate disclaimers.  However, to reduce the risk of a legal challenge, those disclaimers must be carefully written so as to not interfere with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Existing disclaimers should be reviewed by legal counsel for compliance in light of these recent NLRB cases. 

For more information about this article, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

June 12, 2012

NLRB Issues Third Social Media Report

Posted in Computer Use, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , at 9:26 am by Tom Jacobson

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on May 30, 2012 issued its third report addressing social media in the workplace.  Like its two previous reports, this one analyzes social media policies used by various employers, and it describes how they are lawful or unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  This report covers concepts such as:

  • Use of social media and confidential information
  • “Friending” co-workers
  • Privacy, legal matters, online tone, prior permission, and resolving concerns
  • Expressing opinions
  • Bullying
  • Reporting unsolicited electronic communications
  • Unauthorized postings
  • Media and government contact

The NLRB’s third report then concludes with the text of an entire social media policy which it found to be lawful under the NLRA.  “I hope that this report, with its specific examples of various employer policies and rules, will provide additional guidance in this area,” said NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon.  Despite Solomon’s optimism, others predict court challenges over what may be an overly restrictive view of what workplace social media policies may say (see A. Smith, NLRB Takes Sledgehammer to Social Media Policies, SHRM Legal Resources, 6/1/12).

For more information about the NLRB’s other social media reports, see my previous articles, Social Media Report #2 Issued by NLRB and Social Media Report Issued by NLRB.

What you need to know:  It’s a fine line between social media posts that are protected concerted activity under the NLRA and those that are not. Likewise, it is a fine line between social media policies that do or do not violate the NLRA. Therefore, before action is taken against an employee because of his or her social media activity, and before social media policies are implemented, the NLRA itself and the NLRB’s position on these issues must be taken into account.

For more information about this article or how to address social media issues in the workplace, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

February 1, 2012

Social media report #2 issued by NLRB

Posted in Computer Use, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , at 9:07 am by Tom Jacobson

In my October 19, 2011 article, Social Media Report Issued by NLRB, I wrote about a report issued by Lafe Solomon, Acting General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  His report highlighted several cases where actions taken against employees were evaluated under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Solomon has now issued a second such memorandum.

The new report reiterates the main underpinnings of the initial report.  As summarized by the NLRB:

    • Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
    • An employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.

Because Solomon’s reports quote actual practices and/or policies which were in various cases found to be lawful or unlawful, they are good resources for any employer to review when considering social media-based disciplinary action against an employee or when implementing or revising social media policies.

What you need to know:  It’s a fine line between social media posts that are protected concerted activity under the NLRA and those that are not. Likewise, it is a fine line between social media policies that do or do not violate the NLRA. Therefore, before action is taken against an employee because of his or her social media activity, and before social media policies are implemented, the NLRA itself and the NLRB’s position on these issues must be taken into account.

For more information about this article or how to address social media issues in the workplace, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

October 19, 2011

Social media report issued by NLRB

Posted in Computer Use, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , at 8:20 am by Tom Jacobson

In a report issued by its Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has highlighted several cases where actions taken against employees were considered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  As Solomon noted in the report, “Recent developments in the Office of the General Counsel have presented emerging issues concerning the protected and/or concerted nature of employees’ Facebook and Twitter postings, the coercive impact of a union’s Facebook and YouTube postings, and the lawfulness of employers’ social media policies and rules.”

Among other things, the report summarizes four cases where employees were found to have engaged in “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA via their social media posts.  Conversely, the report lists five cases where no protected activity was found.  What made the difference in each of these cases was whether the employees’ posts related to the terms and conditions of their employment and whether the posts involved discussions with other employees (that is, “concerted activity”). In the cases where no protected activity was found, one or both of those elements was missing.

It’s a fine line between social media posts that are protected concerted activity under the NLRA and those that are not. For more information about this article or how to address social media issues in the workplace, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

September 21, 2011

Facebook firings revisited — NLRB extends its reach

Posted in Facebook, National Labor Relations Act, Protected Concerted Activity, Social Media in the Workplace tagged , , , at 10:44 am by Tom Jacobson

I’ve written many times about employees who lose their jobs because of their Facebook activities (see, for example: Facebook faux pas costs waitress her jobFacebook firings and the First AmendmentFiring over Facebook photo — a violation of Minnesota law?).  In yet another foray into the world of work and social media, the National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) has now extended its reach into the issue.

Specifically, the NLRB ruled on September 6, 2011 that Hispanics United of Buffalo (NY) unlawfully discharged five employees after they posted comments on Facebook about working conditions (see Administrative Law Judge finds New York nonprofit unlawfully discharged employees following Facebook posts). According to the NLRB, “After hearing a coworker criticize other employees for not doing enough to help the organization’s clients, the employee posted those allegations to her Facebook page.  The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including work load and staffing issues.”

Hispanics United fired the five employees on the basis that their posts “constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.”  The NLRB ruled that the firing was unlawful because the employees’ conduct was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB action is such cases is nothing new.  For example, the NLRB has ruled that social media policies which too broadly restrict employees’ rights to discuss terms and conditions of employment violate the NLRA (see my previous posts, NLRB challenges Facebook firing and Facebook firing case settled).  What’s significant about the Hispanics United case is that it involved a non-unionized workforce, and it did not target an employer’s social media policy.

The case is likely to be reviewed on appeal, but for now it stands as another reminder that the NLRB is aggressively pursuing Facebook firing cases and is taking a broad view of what is protected concerted activity under the NLRA.  It is also a reminder that certain provisions of the NLRA apply regardless of whether or not a workplace is unionized.

For more information about this article, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

%d bloggers like this: