/>iAn employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two employees because of their participation in a Facebook discussion about their employer’s State income tax withholding mistakes, by threatening employees with discharge for their Facebook activity, by questioning employees about that activity, and by informing employees they were being discharged because of their Facebook activity, the NLRB has ruled. The Board also ruled the employer’s Internet/Blogging policy violated the NLRA. Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014).
Facebook Posts
Triple Play employees Jillian Sanzone and Victor Spinella discovered they owed more in State income taxes on their earnings at the sports bar than expected. Sanzone discussed this at work with other employees, and some employees complained to the employer about the tax problem. The employees did not belong to a union.
Sanzone, Spinella, and former employee Jamie LaFrance had Facebook accounts. On January 31, 2011, LaFrance posted the following “status update” to her Facebook page:
Maybe someone should do the owners of Triple Play a favor and buy it from them. They can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money…[expletive deleted]!!!!
The following comments were posted to LaFrance’s page in response:
KEN DESANTIS (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and a customer): “You owe them money…that’s [expletive deleted] up.”
DANIELLE MARIE PARENT (Triple Play employee): “I [expletive deleted] OWE MONEY TOO!”
LAFRANCE: “The state. Not Triple Play. I would never give that place a penny of my money. Ralph [DelBuono] [expletive deleted] up the paperwork…as per usual.”
DESANTIS: “yeah I really dont go to that place anymore.”
LAFRANCE: “It’s all Ralph’s fault. He didn’t do the paperwork right. I’m calling the labor board to look into it bc he still owes me about 2000 in paychecks.”
At this point, Spinella selected the “Like” option under LaFrance’s initial status update. The discussion continued:
LAFRANCE: “We shouldn’t have to pay it. It’s every employee there that its happening to.”
DESANTIS: “you better get that money…thats [expletive deleted] if that is the case im sure he did it to other people too.”
PARENT: “Let me know what the board say because I owe $323 and ive never owed.”
LAFRANCE: “I’m already getting my 2000 after writing to the labor board and them investigating but now I find out he [expletive deleted] up my taxes and I owe the state a bunch. Grrr.”
PARENT: “I mentioned it to him and he said that we should want to owe.”
LAFRANCE: “Hahahaha he’s such a shady little man. He prolly pocketed it all from all our paychecks. I’ve never owed a penny in my life till I worked for him. Thank goodness I got outta there.”
SANZONE: “I owe too. Such an [expletive deleted].”
PARENT: “yeah me neither, i told him we will be discussing it at the meeting.”
SARAH BAUMBACH (Triple Play employee): “I have never had to owe money at any jobs…i hope i wont have to at TP…probably will have to seeing as everyone else does!”
LAFRANCE: “Well discuss good bc I won’t be there to hear it. And let me know what his excuse is ;).”
JONATHAN FEELEY (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and customer): “And ther way to expensive.”
Sanzone and Spinella Discharged
When Ralph DelBuono, the employer’s co-owner, learned about the Facebook discussion, he discharged Sanzone, telling her it was because of her Facebook comment. Spinella was terminated the next day, after being interrogated about the Facebook discussion, the meaning of his “Like” selection, the identity of the others in the conversation, and other issues. The other co-owner told Spinella that, because Spinella “liked” the disparaging and derogatory comments, Spinella was disloyal and it was “apparent” that Spinella wanted to work elsewhere. He told Spinella, “[Y]ou will be hearing from our lawyers.” Thereafter, the company’s attorney contacted Sanzone by letter, suggesting a possible defamation action. The lawyer also contacted LaFrance who, in response, deleted the entire Facebook conversation and posted a retraction.
Sanzone and Spinella filed separate unfair labor practice charges against Triple Play, which the NLRB consolidated into one complaint.
The employer did not dispute the employees’ Facebook activity was concerted and they had a protected right to engage in a Facebook discussion about the employer’s tax withholding calculations. The employer, however, contended it had not violated the NLRA because the plaintiffs had adopted LaFrance’s allegedly defamatory and disparaging comments, which were unprotected. The employer also asserted the Facebook posts were unprotected because they were made in a “public” forum, accessible to employees and customers, and they had undermined the co-owner’s authority in the workplace and adversely affected its public image.
Comments Protected
The Board disagreed. It determined the employees did not lose the Act’s protection to engage in concerted activity because of their comments in the Facebook discussion. Under its holding in Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), the NLRB explained, it must balance employee rights with the employer’s interest in maintaining order at its workplace, but Atlantic Steel dealt with workplace confrontations with the employer, which was not the scenario here. The employer’s reliance on that decision was therefore misplaced. In this case, the Board pointed out, the disputed conduct involved a social media discussion among offsite, off-dutyemployees, and two non-employees in which no manager or supervisor participated and where there was no direct confrontation with management. Further, the Board said, Sanzone’s “use of a single expletive” to describe her manager “in the course of a protected discussion on a social media website” did not “sufficiently implicate” the employer’s “legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order in the workplace.”
The Board also rejected the employer’s argument that Sanzone’s comment was unprotected because it was a workplace confrontation that could be seen by customers DeSantis and Feeley. The NLRB noted they joined the discussion as LaFrance’s Facebook friends, on their own initiative and in the context of a social relationship with LaFrance outside of the workplace, not because they were the employer’s customers, and“[t]his off-duty indiscretion away from the [employer’s] premises did not disrupt any customer’s visit to the [employer].”
Neither did the Board see this conduct as disloyal or defamatory. While the Board agreed an employer has a legitimate interest in preventing the disparagement of its products or services and in protecting its reputation from defamation, against which NLRA Section 7 rights are to be balanced, that interest was not present here so as to overcome the employees’ statutory protection. It rejected the employer’s contention that Sanzone’s comment and Spinella’s “like” were disloyal and unprotected. The purpose of the employees’ communications was to seek and provide mutual support to encourage the employer to address problems in the terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or to undermine its reputation, the NLRB said. The discussion clearly showed a labor dispute existed and the employees’ participation was not directed to the general public (they were more comparable to conversations that can be overheard by a customer). Further, the Board said the comments were not “so disloyal . . . as to lose the Act’s protection” because they did not even mention the employer’s products.
The Board also rejected the contention that the employees’ comments were unprotected because they were defamatory. According to the agency, Triple Play had not met its burden to establish the comments were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In addition, it said that Sanzone’s use of an expletive to describe a co-owner in connection with the asserted tax-withholding errors “cannot reasonably be read as a statement of fact; rather, Sanzone was merely (profanely) voicing a negative personal opinion of [the co-owner].”
“Like” Protected
The Board also decided that Spinella’s use of Facebook’s “like” option was protected. It expressed agreement only with the comment it immediately followed (LaFrance’s original post), the Board found, not with LaFrance’s other comments. Accordingly, said the Board, Spinella’s activity was protected by the Act, and the employer’s adverse action was unlawful. (See our blog post, Employee’s Facebook ‘Like’ is Part of Concerted Activity: NLRB.)
Internet/Blogging Policy Unlawful
The Board faulted the employer’s internet/blogging policy, as well. It found that, since employees would reasonably construe the employer’s “Internet/Blogging” policy to prohibit the type of protected Facebook post that led to the unlawful discharges, it was illegal.
The policy stated:
The Company supports the free exchange of information and supports camaraderie among its employees. However, when internet blogging, chat room discussions, email, text message, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the company, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Please keep in mind that if you communicate regarding any aspect of the Company, you must include a disclaimer that the views you share are yours, and not necessarily the views of the Company. In the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect.
Employees could reasonably interpret the policy as proscribing discussions about terms and conditions deemed “inappropriate” by the employer, because “‘inappropriate’ [is] ‘sufficiently imprecise’ that employees would reasonably understand it to encompass ‘discussions and interactions protected by Section 7,’” the Board found.
Employer Cautions
This decision is wide-ranging. It underscores the need for employers to pause, reflect, and thoroughly investigate before taking action against employees for alleged misconduct where they have acted together in regard to their wages, hours or working conditions, even where their language might give offense to the employer despite the fact that members of the public can view their complaints. The decision also shows the NLRB affords significant leeway to employees, even permitting public invective against business owners — at least up to a point. Finally, employers should avoid policies and rules that contain broad, imprecise, or vague prohibitions that might be viewed as restricting unlawfully employees’ protected activity.
