Skip to main content

Employer Cannot Lawfully Terminate Employees Who Made Negative Public Statements About the Company


On October 2, the United States Supreme Court denied certioriari in MasTec Advanced Technologies v. National Labor Relations Board.  That case centered on two main questions:  

  1. Can an employer terminate an employee for his/her disloyalty when that employee makes disparaging and disloyal public statements about the employer's only customer?; and
  2. In such cases, is the employee's disloyalty measured under an objective or subjective standard?

Facts:  Many MasTec technicians were involved in a pay dispute with their employer in regard to a new pay policy that had been implemented.  A group of these technicians decided to talk with a local television station about the matter and did interviews in which they claimed their employer instructed them to lie about services provided so additional amounts could be charged to customers.  After MasTec learned that its employees had made disparaging, disloyal, and allegedly untruthful public statements on television about its only customer at its Orlando location, the statements were investigated and these employees were subsequently terminated.  

The employees filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board.  After an administrative law judge ("ALJ") held a hearing, he issued a decision and determined that the employees' statements were so "disloyal, reckless, and maliciously untrue" that they lost the protections of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  Consequently, the ALJ held that MasTec's termination of these employees did not violate the NLRA.  

The Lower Court:  The NLRB disagreed and reversed the decision. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRB on the grounds that the employees' statements were neither maliciously untrue nor so "disloyal" or "reckless" as to lose the protection of the NLRA.

Application of the Law:  Generally speaking, as far back as 1953, it has been held that the NLRA "safeguard[s]" employees' rights to engage in concerted activity for their "mutual aid or protection."  However, the NLRA does not prevent employers from terminating employees for disloyal conduct "separable" from concerted activities.  Third party appeals by employees (which is what happened in this case) are protected under the NLRA where they 1) indicate that they are "related to an ongoing dispute between the employees and the employers; and 2) are not "so disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose the {NLRA's} protection."  As evidenced in the record, the employees' statements were found to be "clearly related to their pay dispute" with MasTec.  As well, it was found that prior to the employees speaking out on television, they had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve their pay disputes directly with their employer.  In addition, the employees' statements were not found to be maliciously untrue as they were "accurate representations of what [petitioner and DirecTV] had instructed the technicians to tell customers."

The Next Step:  By the Supreme Court denying certioriari, readers might wonder what that means, what happens next, etc.  In short, MasTec appealed the D.C. Circuit's ruling to the only place left to appeal...the United States Supreme Court.  Just because a party files a petition for a writ of certiorari (the appeal) with the Supreme Court, that does not mean the matter will be heard.  The Supreme Court gets flooded with petitions every term and only picks a handful to actually hear.  There is no requirement as to what cases the Supreme Court "has" to hear.  (In fact, if the Court so chose, it could decide to only hear cases dealing with non-compete agreements for the entirety of any given term and refuse to hear all others.)  In this instance, because the Supreme Court denied certiorari, the ruling from the lower court remains in effect.   As a result, per the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, MasTec violated the NLRA by unlawfully terminating the employees who made the statements on television about the company.

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more