Nlb V. Pier Sixty

1. The NLRB has made findings regarding the use of employee posts on social media sites to discipline or terminate those employees. Typically, these cases occur when an employee posts negative information about his or her current employer or boss. Sometimes, these are public, and other times, the employer uses spies or fake friending to see the Facebook page of the employee.

 (NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, April 21, 2017, Cabranes, J.).

Pier Sixty operates a catering company based out in New York, the manager Robert McSweeney gave Hernan Perez commands in a “harsh tone” in which was according to the NLRB. Mcsweeneys attitude angered Perez and views it as the normality of the continued disrespect for the employees. Over forty- five minutes after

Perez was offended he logged into his Facebook account and stated, ““Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F@CKER,” he wrote, referring to the supervisor by name. “F@ck his mother and his entire f@cking family!!!!!” His brief post ended with “Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!!”(Perez,2017).This incident had taken place on Facebook as the employee made remarks about his employer’s mother in a profanity. This employee has over 10 coworkers following his Facebook although he may not have notice he had publicized it and was accessible for anyone to read. Days later the employee took the post down however it was already brought to the management’s attention and was shortly the employee was terminated from the company. The employee decided to file a charge to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB) and opened a case due to the NLRA prohibiting any employer to terminate an employee for a union- related activity. Although “the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision finding, as relevant here, that Pier Sixty had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA by discharging Perez in retaliation for protected activity” (CaseLaw, 2017).

2.

When analyzing the whole case the NLRB’s decision was that pier sixty violated the NLRA by discharging Perez. The abusive behavior stands out to be the issue Perez’s use of obscenities within the company in which qualifies for protection under the NLRA, four- factor test established by the NLRB. The test factors out, the place of discussion, the subject matter, the description of the employee’s outburst and was it provoked in anyway by the employers unfair practice. In conclusion, the NLRA decided that the Facebook post was hardly a threat in the workplace and shouldn’t have received such an unlawful consequence.

With the gathered research, I do agree with the NLRB’s decision because it mainly revolves around the misconduct of the employer himself. Yes, I do believe that Perez is wrong for posting such harmful and hurtful words however, if a person reaches his boiling point the person will explode and this is exactly what Hernan Perez did. Although, he shouldn’t have received an unlawful consequence that was determined by the Aggressor, because of how McSweeney had treated his employees and doesn’t entirely care about Perez. The court broke it down into three parts when

determining,
1. Pier Sixty had demonstrated hostility toward the employee’s union activities the immediate period around the same time of Pere’s post
2. Pier Sixty consistently allowed profanity among its employees
3. The location of Perez’s comments was made online on face book and was public although Perez claims he mistakenly thought it was on private.
With the breakdown of this case I therefore, conclude my reasoning as too why I agree with the factual findings and the interpretation of the NLRA.

3.

I believe that the decision would have an effect on all aspects of the case above at my workplace. According to the case study it states” For one employee, it was just the latest example of management’s ‘continuing disrespect for employees’”. In this case it starts with how the employer treats the employees, at my current workplace profanity is used but not in a direct manner. My employer sets an example for all to never disrespect each other and treat each other like family. In order to eliminate issues among the workplace among the workplace the decision in this case would be useful to create a balance and a level of boundaries for employees to determine what is the right way to use social media using the appropriate standards according to the working conditions. In my workplace, Sephora, social media is a huge factor in our own company. Each store holds their own Instagram account and tags the cast members that are featured in the photos, which means it’s also important for the cast members to keep a clean social media account because we represent the company’s image. This means it is not prudent for me or any of my coworkers to post messages or commentaries on social media which could undermine the company’s relationship with the employees, in order to prevent future reoccurrence just like in the NLRB v. Pier sixty LLC.

Case.

4. In order to ensure that the future situation such as the NLRB v. Pier Sixty LLC case doesn’t reoccur as an owner/manager I would first start with how to set an example on how to treat my employees along with setting the standards on how employees should treat each other within the company. It is unprofessional of the employer to dictate in such a hostile manner and for that the employer gains no respect from his employee. In the breakroom, I would post the policies, standards and provide trainings with the Human Resource team in order to facilitate compliance and the recognition of the policies. As Pier Sixty the catering company builds its business the sensitivity of the image on social media, portraying s professional working relationship is critical among building a cliental relationship. Our company’s mission would be to speak positively among others rather than create a negative environment.
In our policy, I would include the following:
1) No Vulgarity or Derogatory Statements- Any comment that is of misconduct or negative are a direct reflection about the company. It builds a negative image and environment when an employee directs a negative statement about on another. When an employee speaks wrong of other and can be associated with the company, it can reflect the negativity of the company to cause a potential loss for all employees. In conclusion keeping a positive environment within the company will keep all employees happy and draw in more customers.
2) Utilizing Common Sense When Stating a Comment- For any action comes a reaction meaning, we may not always like an individual however in a working environment it is important to stay neutral with the employee and to not cause a conflict. Use common sense if your views are placed on a public view which can then lead to a reflection of the company. In order to display public displays, it is under the employees digression for the consequences involved with the words and or actions.
3) A remedial action will take place for any violation of the policy- As it is a violation of privacy to discuss confidential meetings between human resource and the employee, it is understood the employee involved in such intervention is expected to remain under the same confidential agreement. If the manager or human resource discloses the information throughout the business using a coaching method, privacy of the discussion may be suspended.