United States: Five Recent NLRB Cases Provide Further Insight On Structuring Employers' Social Media Policies

Last Updated: July 24 2014
Article by Philip L. Gordon and Lauren K. Woon

Employers, struggling to regulate employees' work-related social media postings, recently suffered a string of defeats in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases challenging their social media and related communications policies.  The six cases, decided in the past two months, which resulted in five losses1 and only one victory for employers,2 demonstrate that the NLRB continues to use social media and other common communications policies as a vehicle to aggressively inject itself into the non-union workplace as the number of unionized workers continues to diminish.  These cases also highlight the need for all employers to scrutinize their social media policies in an effort to determine whether employees reasonably would read them to prohibit discussion about the terms and conditions of employment for the mutual aid and benefit of the workforce, the applicable standard under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or "the Act") for protected concerted activity.

While reading social media policies through the eyes of the proverbial "reasonable employee" can be a challenge for any employer, the five recently decided cases discussed below help to establish certain parameters for policy drafting.  In addition, these cases highlight common social media policy provisions that will raise a red flag for the NLRB and the steps employers can take in drafting these policies to avoid or survive an NLRB challenge.

1. Protection of Confidential Information

Like most employers, the employers in Hoot Winc, LLC and Ontario Wings, LLC d/b/a/ Hooters of Ontario Mills ("Hooters") and in Lily Transportation Corporation promulgated policies to protect their company's confidential information.  For example, in Hooters, the employer's policy provided as follows:

"[t]he unauthorized dispersal of sensitive Company operating materials or information to any unauthorized person or party [might result in discipline up to, and including immediate termination.]  This includes, but is not limited to, recipes, policies, procedures, financial information, manuals or any other information in part or in whole as contained in any Company records."3

And in Lily Transportation, the employer's policy provided under the "Inappropriate Conduct" section of its handbook that "[d]isclosure of confidential information, including Company, customer information and employee information maintained in confidential personnel files," could result in termination.4  Employers frequently reiterate policy provisions like these, often in abbreviated form, in their social media policy.

In both of these NLRB cases, the administrative law judge determined these rules were unlawfully overbroad for two reasons.  First, employees reasonably would believe the policies prohibited them from discussing wages or other terms and conditions of employment with nonemployees, such as union representatives, which is an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.  Second, nothing about the rules limited their scope, for example, by including qualifying language that excepted protected activities.  The judge in Lily Transportation, for example, rejected the prohibition against discussing "employee information maintained in confidential personnel files" because employees would reasonably understand that phrase to bar them from discussing their wages.

For many employers, social media policy provisions that address confidentiality are intended to be substantially abbreviated versions of more detailed confidentiality policies found elsewhere in the employee handbook.  However, Lily Transportation demonstrates that a more detailed confidentiality policy that complies fully with the NLRA generally will not save an overly broad summary in the social media policy.  In that case, the employer asserted the short confidentiality rule did not violate the Act because when read in the context of its more detailed confidentiality policy, employees would understand that the policy applied only to proprietary business information and not to wages, or the terms and conditions of employment.  The judge rejected this argument, reasoning that the short policy statement did not reference the more detailed confidentiality policy and that the more detailed policy was located in a different section of the handbook which employees had no reason to connect with the shorter and overly broad policy statement. 

2. Broad Restrictions on Social Media Posts

The recent NLRB decisions also address social media policies that broadly restrict employees' posting about their employer in social media and other Internet venues.  For example, in Lily Transportation, the employer's policy stated the following:

[E]mployees would be well advised to refrain from posting information or comments about [the company], the [company's] clients, [the company's] employees or employees' work that have not been approved by [the company] on the internet . . . .  [The company] will use every means available under the law to hold persons accountable for disparaging, negative, false or misleading information or comments involving [the company] or [the company's] employees and associates on the internet5...

In Durham School Services, an employer who operates a fleet of school buses, maintained a social networking policy that urged employees who use social media to "limit contact with parents or school officials, and keep all contact appropriate" and required employees to keep "communication with coworkers. . . professional and respectful, even outside of work hours."6  The policy also threatened discipline for "[e]mployees who publicly share unfavorable written, audio or video information related to the company or any of its employees or customers."7

The NLRB rejected these policies as impermissibly overbroad, emphasizing that these polices:

  • Failed to adequately specify the types of information employees were prohibited from posting;
  • Failed to adequately distinguish between information employees could not post and protected speech; and/or
  • Failed to provide examples of social media content the employer would consider "appropriate," "professional," respectful," or "unfavorable."

These decisions demonstrate that employers cannot ban all negative comments about their organization or establish subjective standards that give employers complete discretion to decide which negative comments will result in discipline.  Instead, employers must draft narrowly tailored policies that employees would not reasonably read to prohibit discussion about wages, hours and others terms and conditions of employment, however negative.

3. Additional Rules Pertaining to Communications

A. Requiring "Respectful" Posts

In Hooters, the NLRB judge concluded the employer violated the Act when it terminated a server for, among other things, "posting disparaging comments about coworkers and managers on social media" in violation of the company's insubordination rule.  That rule prohibited "insubordination to a manager or lack of respect and cooperation with fellow employees or guest."8  The judge found the rule impermissible because it did not adequately define "insubordination," "lack of respect" or "cooperation" and thus was subjective.  The judge further reasoned that the rule did not include any limiting language, such as describing what would constitute uncooperative conduct.  The judge suggested that the policy might have survived scrutiny if it had been limited to conduct not supporting the company's "goals and objectives."9

B. Prohibiting Posts that "Negatively Affect" the Employer

Employers may hope that employees will not use social media in ways that damage the company's goodwill or seed internal dissension, but three of the recent cases demonstrate that broad rules seeking to achieve those objectives likely will violate Section 7 of the NLRA. However, the one recent employer victory demonstrates how narrowing language can help a social media policy survive scrutiny.

In Hooters, for example, the employer's policy prohibited any social media post that "negatively affects, or would tend to negatively affect, the employee's ability to perform his or her job, the company's reputation, or the smooth operation, goodwill or profitability of the Company's business."10  The judge determined that this policy failed to provide sufficient guidance on the rule's application and, thus, employees reasonably would conclude it precluded protected activities.11

The "No Gossip Policy" in Laurus Technical Institute faced a similar fate There, the employer's policy prohibited "gossip about the company, an employee, or customer."  The policy broadly defined "gossip" to include, among other things, (a) "[n]egative or untrue or disparaging comments" about others, (b) "repeating information that can injure a person," and (c) "repeating a rumor about another person."  The NLRB in Laurus found this language to be "overly broad" and "ambiguous" and that it "severely restrict[ed] employees from discussing or complaining about any terms and conditions of employment."  The NLRB concluded that "[the employer] ha[d] not sufficiently narrowed, clarified, or defined the scope of its broad no gossip rule."12

Likewise, in Professional Electrical Contractors, the employer maintained a rule that prohibited "using personal computers in any manner that may adversely affect company business interests or reputation."13  The NLRB judge determined the rule was overbroad because it did not include accompanying language that would restrict or limit its application to exclude protected activities.

In contrast to the policies in these cases, the challenged policy in Landry's, Inc. contained limiting language.  The policy "urge[d] all employees not to post information regarding the Company, their jobs, or other employees which could lead to morale issues in the workplace or detrimentally affect the Company's business.  (emphasis supplied).  The following sentence provided examples of how this objective could be met, including "always thinking before you post, being civil to others and their opinions, and not posting personal information about others unless you have received their permission."  The NLRB judge reasoned that (a) the italicized language adequately narrowed the preceding restriction on posting by focusing the policy on the avoidance of "morale issues," and (b) the ensuing examples established that the employer was not trying to prohibit posting on job-related subject matters "but rather the manner in which the subject matter is articulated and debated among the employees."14

C. Restrictions on Profanity

With the letter "F" now a common staple of social media posts, employers have become sensitive about profanity-laced social media posts that can tarnish their image.  However, the Professional Electrical Contractors case demonstrates the challenge of drafting a social media policy that broadly prohibits profanity.

Although the policy at issue in that case prohibited "[b]oisterous or disruptive activity in the workplace" as opposed to profanity per se, the judge, in striking down the policy, relied on cases that addressed policies that required employees to work harmoniously and to forego profanity.  In those cases, the NLRB explained that rules that do not define prohibited abusive or profane language are patently ambiguous and would reasonably be interpreted as barring employees' lawful protected activities.  In contrast, rules that more clearly are directed at prohibiting unprotected conduct are lawful.

As an example, the judge discussed a 2014 case, involving a transportation company, in which the NLRB examined two rules.  The first prohibited "[d]iscourteous or inappropriate attitude or behavior to passengers, other employees, or members of the public" and "disorderly conduct during working hours."  The second prohibited "[p]rofane or abusive language where the language used is uncivil, insulting, contemptuous, vicious, or malicious."  The NLRB determined that the first rule was invalid because it was ambiguous and not sufficiently defined, but the second rule was found to be lawful because it included defining language such that the "clear thrust" of the rule was to prohibit only "profane or abusive" language and not protected activity.15

D. Protecting the Company Logo

The complaint in Landry's alleged that the company's social media policy violated the NLRA by restricting use of the corporate logo.  More specifically, the policy prohibited employees from posting, without prior approval, "any words, logo or other marks that would infringe upon the trademark, service mark, certification mark or other intellectual property rights of the Company or its business partners."  According to the NLRB's General Counsel, employees would reasonably read this policy to prohibit protected, non-commercial uses of the company's logo and could not be expected to understand that the word "infringes" applies only to non-protected, commercial uses of the logo that would create confusion in the marketplace.  The NLRB judge rejected this argument, reasoning as follows:  "As infringement is not defined, the employee is placed in the position of having to exercise his or her best judgment in determining whether postings that include particular 'words, logos, or other marks' may run afoul of the provision."16

Key Takeaways for Employers:

These five recent cases provide the following useful guidance for employers insofar as their social media policies are concerned:

  1. The law in this area remains very fluid.  Employers should follow developments regularly or submit their social media policy for review by counsel on a more frequent basis, perhaps semi-annually, than other policies addressing issues where the law is well settled.
  2. Social media policies should establish specific rules that employees will easily understand.  Employers should avoid subjective terms and standards that leave to the workforce the task of discerning permissible from impermissible social media conduct. 
  3. When analyzing policy provisions for compliance with the NLRA, employers should consider whether employees would reasonably understand the policy to prohibit them from discussing with co-workers subject matters, such as wages, performance evaluations, workplace safety, discipline, or other legally protected terms and conditions of employment.
  4. Especially when establishing high-level principles for social media conduct, such as the need to "be respectful," employers should use examples and limiting language to narrow rules that otherwise would serve as a red flag for the NLRB because they are so overly broad that employees could understand them to prohibit protected activity.
  5. When a social media policy addresses in abbreviated form matters, such as non-disclosure of confidential information, that are addressed in more detail elsewhere in the employee handbook, employers should consider inserting a specific reference to the more detailed policy.

Footnotes

1 Hoot Winc, LLC, Case No. 31-CA-104872 (May 19, 2014); Lily Transp. Corp., Case CA-108618 (April 22, 2014); Durham School Servs., L.P., 360 NLRB No. 85 (April 25, 2014); Professional Elec. Contrs. of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 34-CA-071532 (June 4, 2014); Laurus Tech. Inst., 360 NLRB No. 133 (June 13, 2014).

2 Landry's Inc., Case No. 32-CA-118213 (June 26, 2014).

3 Case No. 31-CA-104872, slip op. at 34.

4 Case No. 01-CA-108618, slip op. at 5.

5 Case CA-108618, slip op. at 7.

6 360 NLRB No. 85, slip op. at 11.

7 Id.

8 Case No. 31-CA-104872, slip op. at 36.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 34.

11  Id. at 38.

12 360 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 5, 9.

13 Case No. 34-CA-071532, slip op. at 6.

14 Case No. 32-CA-118213, slip op. at 5-6.

15 Case No. 34-CA-071532, slip op, at 5-6.

16 Case No. 32-CA-118213, slip op. at 5, 7.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Philip L. Gordon
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions