We’re just a few months away from the Presidential election. That means that the debates are right around the corner.
Monday, started a week-long series of hypothetical debate question for the 2012 candidates for President and Vice President. Here are the questions I asked President Obama, Mitt Romney, and Vice President Biden.
And here’s my question for Rep. Paul Ryan:
It’s been a while since I’ve addressed social media policies and the National Labor Relations Act on this blog. Longer than Kim K’s marriage to what’s his name? Indeed. Methinks things at the National Labor Relations Board have been quiet lately. Maybe a little too quiet.
And then…
Click..click…BOOM! [Cue music]
Earlier this month, for the first…time…evah, the NLRB weighed in on the validity of an employer’s social media policy.
I know. I know. Sit down, catch your breath. This is big stuff! Big stuff!!! Mmmm…double stuf. And speaking of Oreos, have you seen these bad-boys? Who wants to send me a package for Halloween?
Wait! What were we talking about again? Was it fantasy football? Should I start Martellus Bennett tonight?
No, it was NLRB. Dang! What did the NLRB decide about social media policies? WHAT OF SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES!?!? I won’t keep you in suspense any longer. Hit the jump and find out!
Courts analyzing anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act mandate that employers educate employees about discrimination in the workplace and provide a way for them to complain. Then, once made aware of discrimination in the workplace, the employer must take steps that are reasonably designed to end the discrimination. That could mean anything from a verbal warning up to termination of employment. That decision is up to the employer.
In Phila. Housing Authority v. AFSCME, after investigating a complaint of sexual harassment, a unionized employer with a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment fired the alleged harasser. The union subsequently filed a grievance that eventually led to arbitration, at which time the arbitrator deemed the alleged harasser’s behavior to be “lewd, lascivious and extraordinarily perverse.” Notwithstanding, the arbitrator concluded that a verbal warning would have sufficed, rather than termination, and ordered the alleged harasser reinstated and made whole.
On appeal, the PA Supreme Court blasted the arbitrator’s decision, while emphasizing the public policy against unlawful harassment in the workplace.
HR heads are still spinning as they try to digest what the National Labor Relations Board has tried to accomplish this year.
The Acting General Counsel has issued confusing reports on social media. The Board has also attempted to create quickie union elections, and require companies to abide by a union-poster rule. Why, just a few weeks ago, the Board ruled that an “at will” provision in an employee handbook may violate the National Labor Relations Act. That one is still a head-scratcher for me.
But the National Labor Relations Board has really stepped in it again, dealing another crushing blow to HR. I think you’ll agree with me when you read on after the jump…
As y’all know, the National Labor Relations Board has taken quite a beating recently in the courtroom. First, the Board was forced to delay requiring employers to post a union-rights poster in the workplace. Then, a federal court voided the Board’s “quickie” union-election rules.
But, this Board is resilient. This Board is determined to encourage your employees to seek strength in numbers. How does the Board plan to spread its message? Find out after the jump…
Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board‘s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a new report on social media cases brought to the agency, this time focusing exclusively on policies governing the use of social media by employees. It includes a copy of a social media policy that the NLRB found to be lawful.
However, the report, as a whole, left me shaking my head. Inconsistent, overreaching, it’s a hot tepid mess. So, before you go all cut and paste on me from that sample policy, read my critical two cents after the jump…
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is hot!
How hot is the Chamber? Hotter than Paris Hilton humming an 80’s Buster Poindexter tune. (Actually, she abandoned her trademark exclamation “That’s Hot!” for “That’s Huge!”).
Maybe not quite Josh Hamilton hot. But, way hotter than the mature offspring of an encounter involving Zac Efron traveling back in time to impregnate an early-90s Cindy Crawford. I would not want to stand next to the Chamber’s fire right now. Sammmmmokin’!
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employees to discuss wages and other benefits with each other and nonemployees. By maintaining a rule that restricts employee freedom in this regard, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
How does this play out in the real world? Find out after the jump…
Two quick updates for you today; one labor, one employment.
Word has trickled in that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a conference call with lawyers from the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, and informed them that the Court would rule by May 15 on a pending challenge to the NLRB “quickie” election rule changes. You can view those rule changes in this post I did last week.
And in case you missed yesterday’s post on new federal legislation that would bar employer demands for online passwords, be sure to check it out. Late in the day, I scored a copy of the bill, known as Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), and added a link. We know now that employers that violate the law will be subject to civil fines of up to $10K. The Secretary of Labor may also seek injunctive relief. However, the federal law does not mention a private cause of action for individuals.
“Blueprint”? Word. But, do you know how tough it is to find a blog-appropriate Jay-Z hit? Hmmm…let’s try this one.
On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie” election rules survived a Senate challenge. Next week, April 30 to be exact, they go into effect. Hey! Isn’t that when the poster rules go into effect, too? Psyche!
In anticipation of April 30, employers will want to familiarize themselves with this memo from NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon — we are presenting at the same event today — discussing the new representation case procedures. The guidance covers the entire representation case process from beginning to end, incorporating to the extent necessary the new rules and the procedures that remain unchanged.
The Employer Handbook Blog