NLRB's Acting General Counsel Issues Third Report on Social Media Cases

June 4, 2012

On May 30, the NLRB's Acting General Counsel ("GC") issued a third report on social media cases. We have addressed the NLRB's treatment of social media cases in several prior blog posts, including a summary of the GC's second report on social media cases. The focus of this third report is social media policies, and for the first time, the GC has provided the full text of a social media policy that was determined to be lawful under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). In addition, the report addresses six other cases in which the GC concluded that at least some of the provisions of employers' social media policies were overly broad and unlawful under the NLRA. The following summary touches on just a few of the highlights contained in the GC's 24-page report.

A number of the provisions of social media policies that were found to be unlawful were restrictions on communicating confidential information. Where a social media policy simply prohibits the disclosure of confidential information, the GC has determined that such a prohibition is overly broad because it could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit employees from discussing and disclosing information regarding their own and their co-workers' conditions of employment. For example, the GC indicated in the report that the following provisions were found to be unlawful:

"Don't release confidential guest, team member or company information. . . ."
"Make sure someone needs to know. You should never share confidential information with another team member unless they have the need to know the information to do their job. If you need to share confidential information with someone outside the company, confirm there is proper authorization to do so. If you are unsure, talk to your supervisor."
"Watch what you say. Don't have conversations regarding confidential information in the Breakroom or in any other open area. Never discuss confidential information at home or in public areas."
"Employees are prohibited from posting information regarding [Employer] on any social networking sites . . . that could be deemed material non-public information or any information that is considered confidential or proprietary. Such information includes, but is not limited to, company performance, contracts, customer wins or losses, customer plans, maintenance, shutdowns, work stoppages, cost increases, customer news or business related travel plans or schedules."

The GC also found unlawful a provision of a social medial policy prohibiting "offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks" in social media communications. According to the GC, this provision "proscribes a broad spectrum of communications that would include protected criticisms of the Employer's labor policies or treatment of employees." Similarly, the GC found that provisions of an employer's social media policy that cautioned employees not to "pick fights" and to avoid "topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory" when communicating on social media sites were unlawful. The GC reasoned that discussions about working conditions or unionism have the potential to become heated or controversial, and that "without further clarification of what is 'objectionable or inflammatory,' employees would reasonably construe this rule to prohibit robust but protected discussions about working conditions or unionism."

The GC also addressed provisions regarding the "friending" of other employees on social media sites. In general, the GC has found such provisions to be unlawful because they may be interpreted to restrict concerted activity. For example, the GC concluded that the following provision was overly broad because it could potentially discourage employees from engaging in discussions and communications with their co-workers:

"Think carefully about 'friending' co-workers . . . on external social media sites. Communications with co-workers on such sites that would be inappropriate in the workplace are also inappropriate online, and what you say in your personal social media channels could become a concern in the workplace."

Provisions restricting the use of company logos or trademarks in an employee's social media posts were also generally found by the GC to be unlawful. According to the GC, such provisions are overly broad because an employee could reasonably interpret them to prohibit the use of photos or videos of employees engaging in union activities such as holding picket signs with the employer's logo or trademark.

In the report, the GC also addressed again an employer's use of a "savings clause" in a social media policy (which essentially provides that the policy should not be interpreted or applied in a way that would interfere with an employee's rights under the NLRA). As in previous reports, the GC reiterated that such clauses do not cure other provisions of the policy that are found to be unlawful.

In general, the GC advises employers to include limiting language and definitions in social media policies in order to give context to provisions that might otherwise be overly broad. For example, instead of simply prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information, an employer should define what is deemed to be confidential information to ensure that an employee could not reasonably interpret the prohibition to apply to information about the employee's terms and conditions or employment. The GC also suggests that an employer's social media policy should contain specific examples of activities that would be prohibited by the policy.

As a result of this report and the GC's prior reports on social media cases, it is now extremely difficult for employers to create a lawful and meaningful social media policy that adequately protects its own interests with minimal risk that the policy will be found to violate employee rights under the NLRA. Employers who wish to create a new social media policy or wish to revise their existing policy would be well-advised to consult with their legal counsel.

Overview