New NLRB ruling: Facebook posts are protected, sometimes

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Federal

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/10/judge-rules-in-favor-of-employees-fired-over-facebook-post-orde/

well, it seems that if the posts concern a discussion of the terms and conditions of the workplace, the use is protected just as anytime a person speaks of the terms and conditions of their employment in any other forum.

 

[cbg]

I wish I could find the article I read shortly after the ruling, which stated that the rule was deliberately drawn very narrowly and that the court wanted it understood that they were not giving employees permission to publically trash their employers or supervisors.

 

[The Occultist]

My guess is the differences here are the same differences as applied towards defamation laws.

 

[justalayman]

I wish I could find the article I read shortly after the ruling, which stated that the rule was deliberately drawn very narrowly and that the court wanted it understood that they were not giving employees permission to publically trash their employers or supervisors.

well, I can't seem to find the article you refer to but I do understand, and agree with, the point.

I did find this NLRB case that was ruled on in Feb or Mar of this year where a person called their employer a dick and a scumbag on Facebook and was subsequently fired. The NLRB ruled in favor of the employee BUT it was based on the fact the employee was airing a grievance concerning a restriction of the employees rights to union representation.

In the resulting actions (which are not binding on other cases), there was comment of the intent to limit the reach of the ruling.

http://btlj.org/2011/03/07/nlrb-v-a...ase-of-protected-employee-speech-on-facebook/

 

[HomeGuru]

well, I can't seem to find the article you refer to but I do understand, and agree with, the point.

I did find this NLRB case that was ruled on in Feb or Mar of this year where a person called their employer a dick and a scumbag on Facebook and was subsequently fired. The NLRB ruled in favor of the employee BUT it was based on the fact the employee was airing a grievance concerning a restriction of the employees rights to union representation.

In the resulting actions (which are not binding on other cases), there was comment of the intent to limit the reach of the ruling.

http://btlj.org/2011/03/07/nlrb-v-a...ase-of-protected-employee-speech-on-facebook/

**A: interesting thanks for sharing.