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

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

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.