Assignment Choice #1: Case Study Exercise Technology Changes and Job Protection

Case Study: Technology Changes and Job Protection
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Case Study: Technology Changes and Job Protection
Part I
The NLRA provides the employee with protection against any retaliation for concerted activity regarding their work concerns. However, some conditions justify the employer’s decision to discipline an employee for their off-duty social media conduct about the company. In Betty Nelson’s case, the Facebook comments content poses harm to the reputation of the organization, hence it was right to terminate her. The reference to the supervisor as a psychiatric case would lead to mistrust regarding the company’s products, damaging its image. Additionally, the employee handbook states the prohibited actions such defaming a supervisor or the company. The NLRB allows Nelson to comment about the organization, but restricts the reference to issues that are not work-related. The NLRA requires that workers execute the interests of the employer with loyalty (Green, 2012, p.853). Nelson referring to the supervisor as a psychiatric patient with no proof of this and the additional negative comments illustrates attitude issues, and can be presented in court to justify the termination.
If I were representing the company, I would agree to settle the union charges voluntarily. Although the formal NLRB hearing will be the right course to take as there are reasons for justifying Nelson’s termination, the company will lose a lot in the process. First, the NLRB laws lean more on the employee side because of the protection of the concerted activity. Also, the process would be time-consuming and expensive. Apart from this, there is a possibility of the organization attaining further damage to its name because of the NLRB ruling. In most court cases relating to social networking, the judgments usually favor the employee because the NLRA has not been updated to take care of the emergence of technology. The harm to the organization’s image may lead to loss of talent and also clients. Also, the company failed to provide a policy to protect the right of the employee to talk to a union representative or a mechanism for addressing such issues. Hence, the NLRB will have more ground to argue for the employee since this was an unfair labor practice. For the stated reasons, it will be right to decide to settle the issue voluntarily with the union.
The company did not commit an unfair labor practice by terminating Nelson. Even though the NLRB states that the employee has a right to concerted activities regarding their work issues, Nelson’s comments went beyond this provision. The content posed harm to the organization’s image through referring to the supervisor as a psychiatric patient. Thus, the company had the justification under law to fire Nelson and prevent further damage to its operations. Secondly, the internet and blogging policies introduced by the organization were meant to guide the employees regarding the issues that the company prohibits. The setting of these standards was to ensure the protection of the brand image. However, the action of the supervisor to restrict Nelson’s rights to meet with a union representative was wrong. The NLRA permits an ...