Source: https://lacbablog.typepad.com/enbanc/employment_law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:49:23+00:00

Document:
Social media use is altering the employment law landscape in many ways, but the most recent trend is emerging from the National Labor Relations Board's aggressive protection over an employee's right (whether the employee is a member of a union or not) to use social media sites as a venue for "protected concerted activity" as defined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On this topic, two beneficial documents have been published recently to assist employers in drafting their social media policies and in navigating social media disciplinary decisions so that the employer does not violate the employee's rights in this arena.
On August 5, 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued its Survey of Social Media Issues Before the NLRB. The chamber had sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the NLRB and received 129 cases back. According to Michael Eastman, the Executive Director of Labor Law Policy at the US Chamber of Commerce, the issues most commonly raised in the cases before the Board allege that an employer has overbroad policies restricting employee use of social media or that an employer unlawfully discharged or disciplined one or more employees over contents of social media posts.
On August 18, 2011, the NLRB's Office of the General Counsel released its own memorandum that summarized the most recent social media cases issued by the NLRB. In the memorandum, Associate General Counsel Anne Purcell states, "Recent developments in the Office of the General Counsel have presented emerging issues concerning the protected and/or concerted nature of employees' Facebook and Twitter postings, the coercive impact of a union's Facebook and YouTube postings, and the lawfulness of employers' social media policies and rules. This report discusses these cases, as well as a recent case involving an employer's policy restricting employee contacts with the media."
1) The employee is using social media to create a site or page or use a site or page where the stated purpose is to organize his or her coworkers to join together to protest working conditions or vote in a union.
2) The employee is using a social media site or page to complain about wages, working conditions, or management, and he or she is explicitly asking other employees for their opinions and support and/or other employees are giving their opinion and support about the working conditions at that company.
3) The employee is using social media to blow the whistle on employer's illegal activity.
1) The employee is venting about his/her own work, working conditions, wages or manager, but he/she is not seeking support from coworkers, yet other coworkers are commenting on it and/or "liking" the comment.
2) The employee is griping about work, working conditions and wages in general, or management, but no one is commenting about it, although the employee's friends or followers include his/her coworkers.
3) The employee is using social media to "out" the employer or managers for what the employee erroneously perceives as illegal or unethical activity. 4) The employee is name-calling or bad-mouthing the company or its employees, but the comments are all true and not harassing or discriminatory.
1) The employee is posting violent threats, harassing and/or discriminatory comments about his coworkers, managers, or customers, and the comments unreasonably interfere with the targets ability to perform his or her job, especially when it is clear that these comments have nothing to do with working conditions.
2) The employee is posting comments that are so disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue about the company, and the company can prove the employee knew this when he or she posted it.
3) The employee is disclosing the company's trade secrets and/or confidential information.
4) The employee is spending so much time on social media during work hours that it is interfering with the performance of his or her job. The employer should remember to enforce this policy consistently.
5) The employee is expressing a personal vendetta or gripe about his or her manager or coworkers, but it is not directed at coworkers and only his family and friends see it.
Remember, bad words or profanity are not determinative. It is about the motive behind the name-calling that the NLRB cares about. Also, how the company learned about the social media abuse will be taken into account. In other words, employers should not force employees into giving up their passwords to privacy protected groups or chatrooms. (See Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group.) Also, do not pretend to be someone you are not to trick the employee into "friending" you or "accepting" you, especially if you are an attorney-investigator as this may be in violation of your code of professional conduct. Finally, using unlawful surveillance, interrogation, or threats to get information about an employee's social media postings violates California's and other state statutes, which protect employees from this conduct.
On February 23, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Misty Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc. The court held that where the employer paid at least minimum wage before tips to restaurant wait staff, the employer did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when it required the wait staff to participate in tip pooling with the kitchen staff.
This case involved an Oregon restaurant that tip-pooled. Tip pooling typically involves collecting all tips received by directly tipped employees (such as a waitress) so that they may be then redistributed among a larger group of employees (customarily the bussers and other "front of the house" employees.) In this case, Misty Cumbie was a waitress at Vita Cafe, owned by Woody Woo and Aaron Woo, where her tips were redistributed in a tip pool to members of the kitchen staff or "back of the house." Ms. Cumbie argued that the "tip-pooling" violated the FLSA.
Under the FLSA, employers must pay their employees a minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. §206(a). The FLSA's definition of "wage" recognizes that under certain circumstances, employers of "tipped employees" may include part of such employee’s tips as wage payments. 29 U.S.C. §203(m). This is called a "tip credit." Oregon law prohibits employers from paying their employees subminimum wages. Therefore, Vita Cafe did not take a "tip credit" and paid Ms. Cumbie Oregon's minimum wage (which is higher than the federal minimum wage) plus her apportionment of tips from the tip pool. As a result, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling and held that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibits tip-pooling, even to members of the kitchen staff, when the employer does not take a tip credit. This case is significant for employers, such as restaurant owners, casinos, hotels, spas, and others, where tips and tip-pooling is a customary part of that industry.
Similar to Oregon Law, California does not allow employers to pay below the minimum wage. Therefore, California employers cannot take a tip credit and in the circumstances set forth in Cumbie v. Woo would also be exempted from the tip pooling restrictions of the FLSA. Nevertheless, California Labor Code §351 has specific tip pooling regulations for California employers. Recent California cases have interpreted this section of the Labor Code to allow tip pooling for most employees in the chain of service to customers, including busboys and bartenders. In Etheridge v. Reins Int'l California, Inc. the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, in a holding similar to Cumbie v.Woo, stated that tip pooling that included members of the kitchen staff and dishwashers did not violate the state law. Nevertheless, California case law clearly prohibits tip pooling when it includes supervisors, managers, and shift managers but carved out an exception in the case of Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corp., by allowing Starbuck's shift supervisors to share in an apportionment of tips from a tip box.
1) Ensure that nonexempt employees receive minimum wage for all hours worked and that the tips are supplemental to their wage.
2) Explain to all employees that the reasoning behind tip pooling is to ensure a team oriented atmosphere and to be fair to all employees whether they directly interface with the customers or provide support to those who do.
3) Emphasize the critical importance of teamwork and team benefits over individual rewards (such as tips) by having employees "train" in each role of a restaurant before they become servers. That is, they will be less inclined to resent tipping out the cook when they intuitively realize that their "tip" is contingent upon the kitchen staff's hard work and efficiency.
4) Create policies and procedures that keep employees happy and reward them for their hard work in addition to tips, making them value their workplace and less inclined to sue.
5) Be clear from the first day as to who is a participant in the tip pool. In California, those who are managers or supervisors may not participate in the tip pooling. State in writing and inform employees how the tip pool will be distributed.
6) If the employer operates in more than one state, ensure that the company complies with federal law as well as the state laws where it operates. This may involve learning the different statutes and regulations for each jurisdiction.
I attended a program presented by the Los Angeles County Bar Association on social media. I expected to get a general overview of legal issues inherent in social media, from the perspective of the entertainment law experts on the panel, so that I could glean new policies or procedures to recommend to my own clients--in house counsel and human resource professionals--for their company's social media policies. As the panel's discussion/debate turned to legal ethics, however, I was reminded of something Bill Vaughan said, "People learn something every day, and a lot of times it's that what they learned the day before was wrong."
Before I attended the program, I believed that anything a person posted on their social website page or profile was "public" information. For example, people could not expect to keep their age a secret if they posted on Myspace the year they were born. I am not alone in that thinking. One of the panelists, Adam Clayton Powell, III, Vice Provost for Globalization at USC, stated his comparable opinion: "Anything on Facebook is as public as if it was published in the LA Times." Although this specific circumstance has not arisen for me in my own investigations, I did not up until this point find any legal or ethical dilemma in looking at an employee's Facebook page during an investigation into that employee's wrongdoing. For example, if an investigator must discern whether an employee made sexually offensive comments about a coworker on Facebook, it made sense for the investigator to go to Facebook and look at the posting to verify the accuracy of the alleged misconduct.
Yet, despite Mr. Kelly's assertions, the issue of whether a person has a right to privacy on a Facebook profile is not set in stone, even in California. Facebook is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit that challenges its privacy settings as misleading and alleges that the settings actually expose users' private information without permission.
What about a different set of facts? For example, what should an attorney or investigator do when the alleged misconduct is the creation of a social media page with the purpose of badmouthing the employer? This was the case in Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, USDC D.N.J. Case No. 2:06-cv-5754 FSH-PS? Is the invasion of privacy justified? Do non-attorney investigators have to consider the ethical issues also?
I am often asked by clients, counsel and human resource professionals, "Do you think the company should ban employees from using social media while at work?" Often those concerned will complain that employees spend too much time on Facebook rather than work. Or that they can't make their employees think before they tweet something that another employee finds offensive. Or, they heard a rumor that there is an anonymous company blog that badmouths the bosses. These are valid concerns for employers and those who must manage employee's behaviors and productivity. According to recent studies, the average worker admits to spending more than 2 hours per 8-hour workday on the Internet. Employees surfing the Internet, including social networking sites and blogs, account for nearly 45% of that wasted time.
Yet despite the drawbacks, social media sites (such as Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and Myspace) have many business benefits. Social media sites can help employees augment their computer skills, hone communication skills, connect them with colleagues and mentors, and can be used to promote the values, goals, and marketing interests of their employer. The challenge for a company now is to allow for the innovation of technology, including access to social media, while protecting itself and its employees from abuses. Therefore, my response to the question of whether a company should ban employees from using social media at work is always, "Elvis has left the building." The social media train is moving too fast now for employers to stop it. According to Andrew S. Grove, chairman of Intel, "There are two companies--one that operates (with technology) and one that doesn't...you’re either going to do it or you disappear." In other words, social media is here to stay. Banning it is no longer an innovative, competitive, forward-thinking company's best option.
Employers must accept the inevitability of social media's presence in the workplace as much as they have accepted email, the fax machine, and the intranet. Rather the best practice now for employers is to proactively plan for their employees' abuse of social media and implement an ironclad policy that protects the employer from liability in the event of social media abuse. Certainly, there are no one-size-fits all policies that I can draft that would satisfy the needs of each and every company. Industry, company size, social media use and many other factors must be taken into consideration when designing these innovative policies. Fortunately, the Internet is riddled with example social media policies. In case you do not believe me, here are 200 Sample Social Media Policies.I do not recommend or endorse any of these.
1) State that an employee is permitted to access social media sites while at work as long as the use does not interfere with the optimum performance of their job. The company's primary interest is in its employee's productivity, and the use of social media at the cost of this productivity undermines the company's business objectives.
2) State that the company's Internet and email policies apply to employee's accessing social media sites from company computers. That is, the company owns the computers and technology and can and does monitor this usage. Employees should not have an expectation of privacy while using social media.
3) State that the company's discrimination and harassment policies apply to employee's accessing social media sites. Employees should be considerate of visual content displayed on their computer screens. Moreover, accessing sites that are pornographic, violent, or have sexual or discriminatory content is prohibited. Finally, writing harassing, bullying or discriminatory statements about coworkers or management may also violate the harassment policy and is prohibited.
4) State that the company has an expectation of loyalty from its employees that the employee will not make statements on behalf of the company or use the company logo without express, written permission. Moreover, the company expects that employees will not disparage or defame the company, its employees, or its products on any social media site. The company does not want its employees to respond to negative comments about the company, its employees, or products without express, written consent.
5) State that the company expects employees to act with high ethical standards when accessing social media websites. An employee must never represent him or herself or the company in a false or misleading way. All statements must be true and not misleading. All claims must be substantiated. Finally, using social media for unlawful purposes is prohibited.
6) State that the company's trade secret and confidential communications policies apply to the employee's accessing social media sites. The company expects that employees will not share company secrets, confidential information, or company litigation on social media sites. In the event that an employee inadvertently reveals such information, he or she should inform management immediately.
7) State that an employee who violates this social media policy may be subject to discipline up to and including termination.
As important as the policy is to a company in protecting against abuse, so is its enforcement. Do not bury the policy in your handbooks. Train employees on the content of the policy. Train your management to treat employees consistently in the event that they determine employees are abusing social media. Inconsistent discipline may give rise to a claim of discrimination.
Finally, remind managers not to make promises or assurances that could amend the company's written policy. Once case, presently before the California Supreme Court, Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., involves a sergeant on the Ontario, California, SWAT team who sued his employer for violating his right to privacy because it monitored his text messaging from his department-issued pager. Even though the department had a policy that expressly informed employees of its right to monitor their pagers, the sergeant's supervisor promised him he would not monitor it. Appropriately training supervisory staff on the pitfalls of making these verbal assurances would have prevented this lawsuit.
According to Montana News Station, "to be considered for a job [with the city of Bozeman] applicants must provide log-in information and passwords for social network sites in which they participate." Hypercrit has a roundup.
And on the Volokh Conspiracy: "Court Strikes Down Random Drug Test Policy for All Public School Employees." More here.
Michael A. Geibelson writes: On August 7, the California Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Andersen, concerning the breadth and exceptions to noncompetition agreements under Business and Professions Code Section 16600.
The case involved a claim by a CPA who was a tax manager in the Los Angeles office of Arthur Andersen whose offer of employment was subject to a noncompete agreement. Andersen began selling off practices, including plaintiff's, after it was indicted. HSBC, through a subsidiary called Wealth and Tax Advisory Services (WTAS) was to buy plaintiff's practice group. Plaintiff was required to sign a "Termination of Noncompete Agreement" (TONC) to obtain the new employment with WTAS that required, among other things, voluntary resignation from Andersen, and a release of Andersen from "any and all claims," including "claims that in any way arise from or out of, are based upon or relate to Employee’s employment by, association with or compensation from" defendant. Plaintiff refused to sign the TONC, was refused employment by WTAS/HSBC, and was terminated by Andersen. Then he sued them all.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §206
 §203
 v. 
 §351
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.