Skip to main content

NLRB: Employers Can Restrict Workers’ Social Media Usage to Protect Company’s Reputation

 

Bemis Company, Inc. - NLRB


Facts:  Bemis Company, Inc. (“Bemis”) had a social media policy in place, as listed in its employee handbook.  The policy provided:

  • Employees are expected to be respectful and professional when using social media tools.  With the rise of websites like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn, the way in which employees can communicate internally and externally continues to evolve.  We expect our employees to exercise judgment in their communications relating to Bemis so as to effectively safeguard the reputation and interests of Bemis.
  • Employees should:
    • Communicate in a respectful and professional manner;
    • Avoid disclosing proprietary information; and
  • Each employee is responsible for respecting the rights of their co-workers and conducting themselves in a manner that does not harass, disrupt, or interfere with another person’s work performance or in a manner that does not create an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment.  

An unfair labor practice charge was filed against Bemis on the grounds that this social media policy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The Administrative Law Judge found that the social media policy did in fact violate the NLRA because it would restrain Bemis’ employees from discussing their working conditions.  The full NLRB subsequently reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling.

Analysis:  The NLRB pointed out that it has repeatedly held that when analyzing the lawfulness of a work rule (such as the social media policy at issue here), it must refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation.  In the case of this social media policy, the NLRB found that an objectively reasonable employee would understand that the first paragraph of the rule set out a general expectation that was more fully defined by the explanatory language that followed.  When reading the social media policy in its entirety, the rule makes clear that to safeguard the reputation and interests of Bemis, employees that refer to the company on social media must be respectful and professional, not disclose proprietary information, must respect their coworkers, and must not harass, disrupt, or interfere with another person’s work or create an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment.

The NLRB reasoned that employees would reasonably understand that adhering to these specific exceptions would support the general expectations described in the social media policy’s first paragraph without risking infringing on an employee’s Section 7 rights to discuss, criticize, or complain about working conditions with coworkers or the public when using social media.  Of note, the social media policy’s goal was to protect the reputation of Bemis.  As a result, the social media policy only concerned communications that could affect the public’s view of the company rather than private conversations among employees.

The Takeaway:  This was a noteworthy decision from the NLRB in which it reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling.  On that note, there are a few things worth pointing out.  For starters, this social media policy concerned public communication about the company.  Bemis was not saying that employees could not talk about their job or the company, in public or private.  (That likely would have been found to be in violation of the NLRA.)  Bemis also was not saying that employees could not talk amongst themselves about their job or the company, in public or private.  (That also likely would have been found to be in violation of the NLRA.)  Rather, the social media policy was put in place to protect the company’s reputation.  As well, Bemis was not stating that employees could not send direct messages (on Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, etc.) to each other talking about their working conditions.  (That likely would have been found to be in violation of the NLRA.)  Instead, the policy when read in full, was narrowly tailored enough to survive an unfair labor practice charge.

Date:  August 7, 2020

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45831cbab9


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