Social media activities
Arbitration agreements
NLRB posting requirement stayed pending litigation

A newly activist National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) has given all employers – whether their workplaces are unionised or not – reason to pay close attention to its activities. While many of its initiatives will be subject to heated challenge in the courts, employers are advised to keep apprised of these developments.

Social media activities

Several recent administrative law judge (ALJ) decisions have addressed the legality of employer action with respect to employees' use of social media. In Karl Knauz Motors, Inc(1) an ALJ found that a car dealership did not unlawfully terminate an employee for his Facebook postings, finding that discharging the employee for posting photos of a car accident that had occurred at an adjacent dealership, which was also owned by his employer, did not constitute protected activity under the National Labour Relations Act. Nonetheless, the ALJ found that the employer's policy was overly broad and could potentially chill protected activity because it prohibited employees from giving "unauthorised interviews" to third parties and stated (in a separate clause) that "[n]o one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the dealership".

In G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc(2) an ALJ examined a security company's social media policy, which provided that employees were not permitted to "comment on work-related legal matters without express permission of the legal department". Although the policy included a disclaimer stating that it should not be interpreted to interfere with employees' Section 7 rights, the ALJ found that employees could reasonably interpret the prohibition to chill protected activity because the term 'legal matters' was not defined in the policy.

In Design Technology Group, LLC(3) – yet another Facebook-related ruling – an ALJ found that a retail store unlawfully terminated three employees who complained about their manager on Facebook. After the employees were admonished by the manager for closing the store early because they felt unsafe walking home at the prescribed closing time, the employees complained about the manager on their Facebook pages. The ALJ ruled that terminating the employees six days after the posts were made constituted an unfair labour practice. Notably, the ALJ also ordered that the employees be reinstated to their positions.

Further development in this emerging area of law occurred with the NLRB's release of two reports focusing on social media issues. On January 25 2012 the board issued a second report regarding the interaction between the National Labour Relations Act and workers' use of social media. The report highlighted 14 social media cases that had been considered by the general counsel's office, which reflected two main themes:

  • whether social media policies are NLRA-compliant; and
  • when employee discipline based on social media postings violates the National Labour Relations Act.

The NLRB's third report concerning this topic followed on May 30 2012, this time focusing exclusively on the social media policies of seven different employers.(4)

The NLRB's guidance draws a distinction between protected social media posts, in which employees discuss shared concerns over terms and conditions of employment, and those that amount to mere 'individual gripes'. For example, in a case discussed in the January report, an employee of a veterinary hospital was angry over the promotion of a co-worker and expressed her frustration in a Facebook posting. Three co-workers, who were her Facebook friends, responded, complaining about the woman who got the promotion and the employer's mismanagement. The NLRB determined that the termination of these employees violated the National Labour Relations Act.

However, in another situation, an employee of a home improvement store was not found to be engaged in protected activity when, upset after being reprimanded by her supervisor, she posted on Facebook using an expletive and the name of the store. Four individuals, one of them a co-worker, 'liked' the status, while two other individuals commented on it. Half an hour later the employee posted again and stated that the employer did not appreciate its employees. This time, no co-workers responded. The NLRB concluded that these Facebook postings were "merely an expression of an individual gripe" and were not protected concerted activity. The company's decision to discharge the employee after making these comments, therefore, did not violate the National Labour Relations Act. Crucial to the board's decision were the observations that the employee:

"had no particular audience in mind when she made that post, the post contained no language suggesting that she sought to initiate or induce co-workers to engage in group action, and the post did not grow out of a prior discussion about terms and conditions of employment with her co-workers".

These factors provide helpful guidance for employers considering discipline in response to employees' social media posts. Employers should examine each situation carefully to determine whether facts exist evidencing group action.

The examples in both reports also illustrate the close scrutiny that the NLRB will apply to social media policies prohibiting employee discussions online. The board has made clear that employers must avoid creating policies that may interfere with an employee's rights under Section 7. In assessing the lawfulness of an employer policy, the NLRB considers whether:

  • an employee would reasonably understand the policy to prohibit activities protected under Section 7;
  • the policy was created in response to union activity; or
  • the rule is applied in a manner that restricts Section 7 rights.

Policies that "contain no limiting language or context that would clarify to employees that the rule does not restrict Section 7 rights" will be deemed unlawful.

The highlight of the May report is the inclusion of Walmart's social media policy as a model policy that the NLRB found to be lawful. The report observes that Walmart's policy included sufficient examples of "clearly illegal or unprotected conduct, such that they could not reasonably be construed to cover protected activity". Thus, for example, the policy advises employees to be "respectful" and "fair and courteous" when posting comments, complaints, photos or videos online and specifically identifies types of prohibited posts, such as "offensive posts meant to intentionally harm someone's reputation or posts that could contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of race, sex disability, religion or any other status protected by law or company policy". Similarly, the rules protecting Walmart's confidential information and trade secrets were not overly broad because they included language limiting the scope of protected information.

When adopting or modifying a social media policy, employers are well-advised to consider the provisions of the Walmart policy, given that it now has the imprimatur of the NLRB.

In light of the NLRB's recent reports and decisions, employers must ensure that their policies regarding social media activities do not impose an undue burden on employees' theoretical Section 7 rights, and consider whether and when disparaging remarks made online by an employee may be protected.

When drafting social media policies, employers must keep in mind that simply prohibiting disparaging comments or unprofessional communications will run afoul of the NLRB 's strong views. However, as the Walmart example illustrates, the use of context and specific examples in a policy will likely improve its compliance with the National Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, employers should note that a disclaimer will not automatically cure an otherwise deficient policy.

Arbitration agreements

In a decision at odds with the strong public policies underlying the consistently pro-arbitration rulings of the Supreme Court, the NLRB ruled in DR Horton, Inc and Michael Cuda(5) that employers cannot force employees to sign arbitration agreements waiving their right to bring joint, class or collective actions.

The NLRB's ruling appears to contradict the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion,(6) which held that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits states from conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of class-wide arbitration procedures, and has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

NLRB posting requirement stayed pending litigation

The NLRB issued a new posting requirement that would require employers to post workplace notices informing employees of their right to organise under the National Labour Relations Act (for further details please see "NLRB decrees employers must notify employees of right to organise").

Employers were originally expected to comply with the new rule by November 14 2011; however, the effective date has been pushed back several times due to various legal challenges. These pending lawsuits argue that the NLRB lacks statutory authority to mandate a notice posting and impose penalties for non-compliance.

The rule has been temporarily enjoined by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Thus, employers need not post the notice pending the court's hearing of appeals regarding the posting requirement.

In the meantime, the NLRB has continued to step up its efforts to reach out to non-union employees. Recently, it unveiled a new website targeting such individuals with the stated goal to educate them regarding their rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labour Relations Act. This 'education' campaign may reasonably be expected to lead to an increase in claims asserted under the act.

For further information on this topic please contact Kevin B Leblang or Robert N Holtzman at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP by telephone (+1 212 715 9100), fax (+1 212 715 8000) or email ([email protected] or [email protected]).


(1) 2011 WL4499437 (NLRB Div of Judges, September 28 2011).

(2) 2012 WL 1065721 (NLRB Div of Judges, March 29 2012).

(3) 2012 WL 1496201 (NLRB Div of Judges, April 27 2012).

(4) The reports can be accessed through the board's website at

(5) 357 NLRB No 184 (January 3 2012).

(6) 131 S Ct 1740 (2011).