Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case Case Study

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Mr. Matt Evans and Ms. Jennifer Dawson were terminated following negative postings on their Facebook accounts. The two employees were told the posts seemed negative and tarnished the company’s name. Mr. Matt Evans was accused of posting disparaging comments about Jackson Miller Properties on his Facebook account. He mocked the promotional sales provisions that were held on February 16, 2019. On the other hand, Ms. Jennifer Dawson was accused of posting negative comments about another company’s division on her Facebook page. She mocked the incident at the Bridgestone site, which handles commercial buildings, on March 3, 2019. However, the two argued that it was their Facebook accounts and had nothing to do with its operations.

In 2011, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) made some provisions to protect employees’ conversations made on social media platforms related to work. In pursuit of section 7 of NLRA, employees have the “right to form, join or help labor organizations and be part of other activities which involve collective bargaining” (National Labor Relations Board, n.d). According to the employer, some specifics of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) pertaining to employee protection were violated.

However, the facts presented in this case do not warrant the two employees’ termination. This follows from NLRA provisions, which protect workers’ rights in working together to address issues at work in or outside a union. The two employees engaged in an act protected since they were posting activities of the company (Starich, 2018). By doing this, they aimed at raising awareness of the unsatisfactory actions of the organization. However, the employer argues that the handbook provisions were subject to every employee. The employee handbook acknowledges that the company can terminate a worker’s contract anytime. Based on the manual, courtesy is the most significant factor that needs to be maintained. The CEO, therefore, argues that he had fired the two as they involved the internet in tarnishing the company and that it attracted “awful comments” from family, friends, and co-workers.

It should, however, be noted that the NLRB prohibits posts that portray an organization as bad. In Mr. Matt Evans’s case, he had raised the issue in a previous staff meeting, but his boss rejected it. His posting was not cynical about the company but made constructively. Conversely, for Mrs. Dawson, it was not appropriate for her to celebrate an accident that occurred in a subsidiary company branch. The NLRA provisions require that postings be centered on criticizing an employer or vocalizing sentiments rather than the activities of a company (Schmidt & O’Connor, 2015). It was wrong for her to rush and post the incident as it embarrassed the company. This activity was a non-concerted one, which is against NLRA protection.

Intuitively, the CEO was right in terminating Ms. Jennifer Dawson since her post was neither on criticizing the employer nor vocalizing sentiments. However, Mr. Matt Evans’s case was different, and it did not warrant termination as he was airing opinions on promotion issues. From the perception of an NLRB judge, the CEO is right in the ruling of Ms. Jennifer Dawson but wrong in r. Matt Evans’s judgment. This follows from the fact that the employee handbook speculated on courtesy, and they were required to observe courtesy while dealing with clients, suppliers, and vendors. Based on the NLRB protection on social media, the employee lacked courtesy in her posts. The employer violated NLRA section 8(a) by coercing or interfering with rights provided in section 7 on social media sites. Ms. Jennifer Dawson violated NLRB by posting unprotected activities, and hence she should rescind the policy and hearken it to the rest of the internal client.

References

National Labor Relations Board. (n.d). What’s new. Web.

National Labor Relations Board. (n.d). What’s new. Web.

Schmidt, G., & O’Connor, K. (2015). Fired for Facebook: Using NLRB guidance to craft appropriate social media policies. Business Horizons, 58(5), 571-579. Web.

Starich, M. (2018). Campus Legal Advisor, 18(7), 1–3. Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, June 28). Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pursuit-of-national-labor-relations-act-case/

Work Cited

"Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case." IvyPanda, 28 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/pursuit-of-national-labor-relations-act-case/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case'. 28 June.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case." June 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pursuit-of-national-labor-relations-act-case/.

1. IvyPanda. "Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case." June 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pursuit-of-national-labor-relations-act-case/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Pursuit of National Labor Relations Act Case." June 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pursuit-of-national-labor-relations-act-case/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1