Best Practices in Social Media for Employers Part 2 – Monitoring Employees’ Social Media Use

Mar 5, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) is the government agency charged with enforcement of the NLRA.  A common misperception is that the Board can only exercise jurisdiction over employers with unionized workforces.  However, the Board actually has jurisdiction over most private employers, regardless of whether a union presence exists at their worksite.   

Following a decline in private sector union membership over the past few decades, the NLRB in recent years has capitalized on the exponential increase in social media use as grounds to inject itself into nonunionized workplaces.  Social media receives extensive media attention, and thus provides a platform to capture the attention of nonunionized private sector employees.  In accordance with this initiative, the Board has opined on employers’ social media (and other standard workplace) policies where it believes those policies infringe on employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.

The NLRB has held that various standard prohibitions in employers’ social media policies and employee handbooks violate the NLRA, including:

  • overbroad definitions of what constitutes “confidential information,” which may not be disseminated by employees on social media platforms
  • prohibiting employees from contacting or commenting to the media, or commenting on social media, about their employer or co-workers
  • discouraging employees from posting “inappropriate,” “disparaging,” or “negative” comments about their employer or co-workers
  • requiring employees to only post “respectful” comments
  • blanket prohibitions against employees using the company’s logo
  • requiring employees to include disclaimers stating that their comments or posts do not reflect the views of their employer. 

The above prohibitions are generally found to violate the NLRA because, in the NLRB’s view, they can reasonably be interpreted by employees as prohibiting them from discussing their terms and conditions of employment.  For example, if an employer’s definition of “confidential information” includes personnel information, and the employer’s policy prohibits employees from sharing confidential information on social media, employees could construe this as prohibiting them from discussing their wages with colleagues, which is permissible activity under the NLRA.  Additionally, prohibiting employees from posting “inappropriate,” “disparaging,” or “negative” comments, or otherwise requiring employees to post “respectful” comments, could be viewed by employees as prohibiting them from discussing a conflict with a supervisor or complaining about a workplace policy, which is conduct protected by the NLRA. 

If an employer’s social media policy violates any of the above broad prohibitions, broad disclaimers, such as, e.g., “in the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect,” will not cure the violation, and the policy will be deemed unlawful by the NLRB.

In light of the above, we recommend employers carefully consider business needs and required compliance with other laws and regulatory schemes when drafting a social media policy.  In some situations, it may be best to refrain from implementing a policy specific to social media, as the issues covered can be best addressed in other policies or in a compliance manual.  If the decision is made to put a social media policy in place, we suggest the following best practices:

  • Avoid blanket prohibitions on the types of information employees may post, and kinds of conduct in which employees may engage, on social media. 
  • Use specific and targeted examples to demonstrate the types of information and kinds of conduct that are prohibited when using social media.   
  • Clarify otherwise ambiguous language that may be construed by employees as infringing on their rights to engage in concerted activity. 

Review other handbook policies, such as confidential information, information technology, and code of conduct policies, to ensure that definitions used in those sections, which may be referenced in a social media policy, are not overbroad in violation of the NLRA.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

Read More

Deal Diary

2022-12-15

On December 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. The amendments aim to strengthen investor protections concerning insider trading and to help shareholders understand when and how insiders are trading in securities for which they may at times have material nonpublic information (MNPI). In light of these amendments, issuers should review and revise, if needed, their insider trading policies and equity grant policies.

Read more.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.