Skip to main content

NLRB: Employers Cannot Require Disclaimer to Accompany Social Media Posts By Employees


The Kroger Company of Michigan - NLRB

Facts:  Anita Granger filed an unfair labor practice charge against Kroger on February 15, 2013, in regard to the social media disclaimer that Kroger required its employees to post whenever an employee posted something online.  Specifically, Kroger stated that in its handbook that if employees identified themselves as an associate of the company or published any work related information online, the following disclaimer had to be included:  "The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the positions, strategies, or opinions of The Kroger Co. family of stores."

The issue in this case centers on whether the disclaimer requirement violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), specifically Section 7.  Section 7 states:

  • "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities."

A key protection provided by Section 7 is the fact that employees have the right to discuss, debate, and communicate with each other regarding their workplace terms and conditions.
 
Holding:  The NLRB Administrative Law Judge held the disclaimer language included in Kroger's handbook was illegal, in violation of Section 7 of the NLRA.  Specifically, the Judge noted that where the rules are likely to have a chilling effect on Section 7 rights, the Board may conclude that their maintenance is an unfair labor practice.

In this case, the Judge held that even if Kroger had a legitimate interest in limiting unauthorized communication, the disclaimer requirement had no significant legitimate justification, and in effect would chill Section 7 speech.  As a result, the disclaimer requirement imposed on Kroger's employees was found to be illegal and therefore was an unfair labor practice.

Date:  April 22, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-098566

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more