NLRB Makes It Official – Requiring Employees to Be Courteous Is Unlawful

You have GOT to be kidding? And you wonder why this administration is considered anti-business.

 

And now for something completely different.... The truth!

NLRB Makes It Official – Requiring Employees to Be Courteous Is Unlawful



Authored By: Stephen W. Lyman

NLRB Adopts ALJ Decision Finding Employer “Courtesy” Policy to Be Unlawful
Last Fall, an Administrative Law Judge for the NLRB issued one of the first opinions addressing social media in the workplace. The ALJ’s decision addressed two separate social media issues in what you may recall as the “hot dog cart” case or the “Land Rover in the pond” case. We reported that holding in our November 1, 2011 Employment Law Briefing. (See our article below).
Termination Was Lawful, but …
Now it’s official. The NLRB upheld the ALJ and issued its opinion that had some bad news for employers and a little bit of good. First the good. The NLRB was seemingly employer-friendly in ruling that an employer’s decision to fire an employee for his postings on Facebook did not violate the NLRA. The employee, a BMW salesperson, posted comments to his Facebook page mocking his employer for serving cheap hot dogs at a high-end BMW 5-series sales event. The employee was concerned that the cheap hot dogs at a high end sales event would hurt his chances for sales commissions because potential customers would be offended. The same employee also posted comments criticizing another employee for allowing a teenager to test drive a Land Rover, which ended up in a pond.

Requiring Employees to Be Courteous Interferes with Their Rights
The ALJ concluded, and the NLRB agreed, that the employee engaged in protected activity with respect to his comments regarding the sales event, but that the employee’s comments criticizing the other employee had no connection to the terms and conditions of his employment. The employer was able to demonstrate that the employee was actually fired for Facebook postings about the Land Rover in the pond and not because of the hot dog postings. So, the discharge of the employee was lawful.
But, as good as that outcome was, there was some bad news. In addition to the NLRB’s decision regarding the legality of the termination, the NLRB concluded that the employer’s courtesy policy was unlawful. The policy language at issue stated:

Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Every employee 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 NLRB concluded that the requirement that employees not be “disrespectful” and refrain from damaging the employer’s image or reputation violated the NLRA because the policy “proscribes not a manner of speaking, but the content of employee speech – content that would damage the employer’s reputation.” Because employees could reasonably construe the policy to prohibit protected activity, the NLRB found it to be unlawful.
Although the NLRB’s decision illustrates that employers may discipline employees for social media posts in some circumstances, employers should be cautious and consult with counsel first to determine whether the posts contain comments that are protected under the NLRA. In addition, this decision makes it clear that the NLRB continues to scrutinize employment policies closely to ensure compliance with the NLRA.

 

That specifically was the policy "the NLRB found it to be unlawful". Read it however you like.
NLRB Makes It Official – Requiring Employees to Be Courteous Is Unlawful

 

It's kind of hard for me to be against the 1st Amendment. You however, not so much.

NLRA because the policy “proscribes not a manner of speaking, but the content of employee speech – content that would damage the employer’s reputation.”

Maybe you do want your employer dictating your speech but that doesn't mean the rest of us are willing to abdicate our rights like idiot sheep.

 

Really? A customer comers in and an employee "I am tired of this company screwing me and every customer. May I help screw you?". Now the company cannot fire him for not being courteous? WRONG! Sorry, but your freedom of speech ends at the company's front door.

 

Wow! The United Corporate States of America is strong in this one. Now your 1st Amendment right to free speech is at the behest of your corporate masters according to ole Dicky. You must be the original tool of corporate America. I guess being both a Dick and a tool comes naturally to you. I'm still going to fight until my last breath for my Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

 

So you are telling me that your professors have the freedom to teach the Communist Manifesto in math class without repercussions? Or you have they right to picket against abortions while at work? Interesting, but both of those are covered under freedom of speech, but I still bet you would get fired.

 

Don't try to change the subject. You've made too many stupid assumptions to even bother with. As usual, you head off on some vaguely related tangential topic Sherlock Holmes couldn't follow.

 

I did not change a thing. You brought up freedom of speech at work. Not me. All I am doing is giving you examples. Somehow, I don't think they fit your mantra.