Here's a recap of the case: After a dispute in the workplace involving a customer complaint, employee Dawnmarie Souza posted a negative remark about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. This drew supportive responses from coworkers. Those responses then led to more negative comments from Souza about the supervisor.
Souza's employer, the American Medical Response (AMR) ambulance firm, suspended her and later terminated her because of her Facebook postings.
The AMR blogging and Internet posting policy included these statements:
"Employees are prohibited from posting pictures of themselves in any media, including but not limited to the Internet, which depicts the Company, in any way, including but not limited to any Company uniform, corporate logo or an ambulance, unless the employee receives written approval... in advance of the posting...
"Employees are prohibited from making disparaging comments or discriminatory or defamatory comments when discussing the Company or the employee's superiors, co-workers, and/or competitors."
The NLRB filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Connecticut company.
The NLRB asserted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives all employees the right to discuss with other employees such work issues as pay, benefits, and working conditions. These discussions on work conditions and work issues are protected activities. In the case against AMR, the NLRB argued an employee's comments about a supervisor and about an employer, posted on a social media site like Facebook, is protected concerted activity when it involves comments and responses between coworkers.
The NLRB alleged the ambulance company illegally terminated Souza for violating the company's policy prohibiting employees from describing the company "in any way" on the Internet without company permission. The NLRB described the company's policy as overly broad.
A settlement is reached: In a private settlement between AMR and Souza, the employer has agreed to back off from its restrictions on employees' expressions of workplace issues outside the workplace.
The NLRB issued this statement about the settlement:
"Under the terms of the settlement... the company agreed to revise its overly broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.
"The company also promised that employee requests for union representation will not be denied in the future and that employees will not be threatened with discipline for requesting union representation." [The employee in the case, Dawnmarie Souza, was a member of the Teamsters union and the Teamsters represented her before the NLRB.]
Meaning to employers: The settlement between AMR and the NLRB strengthens the NLRB's position that employers can overreach in attempts to prevent employees from discussing matters relating to their work.
[NOTE: Information and guidance in this story is intended to provide accurate and helpful information on the subjects covered. It is not intended to provide a legal service for readers' individual needs. For legal guidance in your specific situations, always consult with an attorney who is familiar with employment law and labor issues.]
