A Chicago area based car dealership for wrongful termination of an employee on the basis of the employee posting critical comments on Facebook. The employee posted about the poor quality of food and beverages served at the dealership for promoting the new BMW car model. The employee along with a few others felt that the food and beverages used for not good enough to hype the luxury car and suggested that sales could suffer due to it. The employee added a photographic evidence for the unremarkable quality of snacks. After being informed about the management’s position, the employee was asked to take down the pictures and comment from the Facebook page. The employee complied and took down all pictures and messages, but was fired a week later by the management. The NRLB filed a complaint against the dealership and argued that the employee’s Facebook posting is a concerted activity (Jamieson N.pag).
The decision taken by the NRLB is agreeable as the employee’s action is a case of protected concerted activity. In simple words, it can be termed as a labor-speak for actions that employers should not be allowed to retaliate against.
Such a decision would lead to weakened employee relations as trust is broken between the employee and the management. The employee did everything that was asked by the management and deleted the critical post and pictures on Facebook. The firing of the employee might also create a negative image of the business and their practices. The management, despite getting their wish and employee following their instructions, the management decided to fire the employee. The company would create an image that makes its employees feel like they are heartless and unable to keep their promises. Other employees would feel that they are walking the tightrope and might feel that the company was unethical in their practice. Other employees would also feel that they cannot make the same mistake and would feel restricted in their role. Many would feel they are better off working at other organizations as their current employers have no regard for their employees.
The only way to communicate this decision is by being honest with the employees and informing that the decision was made not because the employee broke the social media policy, but there were credible reasons behind the firing. In addition, it would be better to reiterate that the social media policy is for the benefit of the organization rather than a restriction on employee’s rights. The social media policy has its advantages and disadvantages; it ensures that the business avoids any negative comments and opinions from employees, but it makes the employee feel restricted and unprotected from sharing their opinion on social media.
The three things that should be added to the social media policy are respecting fair use and copyright, protect proprietary and confidential information and write responsibly (Lauby, 2009). Fair use and copyright will ensure the employees would not be allowed to exploit company’s copyright. Protecting confidential information is necessary and employees should not be allowed to share information that can hinder the organization. Write responsibly is not only a policy, but it also a necessity as all employees should take care of the words they are using when talking about the company. This social media policy is appropriate and does not include any restriction on employees that are not common sense.
Works Cited
Jamieson., D. Facebook Posting Led To Worker's Unfair Firing: Feds. The Huffington Post. huffingtonpost.com. 25 May 2011. Web. 17 January 2016.
Lauby., S. 10 Must-Haves for Your Social Media Policy. Mashable. Mashable.com. 2 June 2009. Web. 17 January 2016.
