Advise on Facebook Firing, Essay Example

It is wrong to dismiss an employee because of facebook postings. Postings on the social media are modes communication to the employer or co-workers. The employer should not fire the employee because of the posting but should act on the complaint raised by the employee. Protected concerted legal activity protects the employee from the employer. According to NLRB, the employees have the right to raise complaints on their remuneration, working conditions, and the activities of the co-workers in the organization. The employees are protected by the act even if they are not in the union. King Mercedes and European Cars should not continue with the case. It is because the employee has a right of expressing any complaint or negative activity on the social media.

In the case of Lakewood, Washington construction contractor, the company lost the case and paid the employee’s full back pay, and they decline the reinstatement. The construction company who was the employer had fired five employees because they appeared on YouTube video airing their complaints about poor working conditions. The case was settled after an investigation on the matter done by NLRB. Other employees in Rain City Contractors learned about their rights and protection from the NLRB. Three of the employees posted another video complaining of handling dangerous materials without protection. The employees had been fired by the company. The management also threatened to investigate and interrogate the remaining employees. The company warned the employees on reporting anything about hazardous working conditions. RNLB intervened, investigated, and presented the evidence in court. The company lost the case and agreed to give the employees full back pay from the date their duties were discharged up to the date the case was settled. The employees declined to be reinstated in the company.

King Mercedes and European Cars should not fire Fred because of the posting on Facebook. Instead, the complaint should be investigated and corrected in the company. For example, complain about food served to the high-end customers was a negative picture to the company. Fred was not complaining for his benefits but for the company to attract and influence more customers. Respective authorities in the company should address the problem such that it will not happen in the future. On the posting, Fred posted about King’s son rolling a brand new Mercedes were true arguments, but his employment was terminated. The company has lost aggressive employee and at the same time; the employee sues the company.

Kings Mercedes and European Cars should not move on with the case it would lose the case and give Fred back pay. It is because the company did not investigate the complaints raised by Fred, but it decided to terminate his employment. The company should understand the rights of the employees as protected by NRLB. The employees have the right to raise any concern or complaint on what is happening in the company, which is not right. As per the case of a construction company, when the employees were compensated after winning the case about the posts on YouTube, other employees raised complaints. The company lost employees at the same time giving back pay. In this case, if the company continues moving the case against Fred, it will lose the employee as well as the back pay. It is because Fred will seek assistance from NLRB, which will investigate the matter and act in support of Fred.

If the company decides to continue moving the case and the case settled in favor of Fred, the company will give him the back pay. Automatically, Fred will not accept to be reinstated in the company. The other employees in the company will learn about their rights of expression and remuneration in the company. The employees also will know that NLRB protects them in case of any mistreatment from the employer and even poor working conditions. The employees will raise many complaints through the social media, and the company will be held liable of the complaints.

King Mercedes and European Cars should not continue with the case but invite Fred to discuss the complaints and correct them without going to court. The company should advise Fred together with other employees to forward any complaint to the respective departments in the organization and not on the social media. The company should make sure that any complaint raised by the employees should be addressed accordingly such that the employees are satisfied on how they are served. The company will have retained Fred as an aggressive employee. In addition, the company will have adopted the right channel of raising and addressing the employee complaints. In the case of any misunderstand or questions about his letter, please call me for clarification.

References

Green, A. C. (2012). Using Social Networking to Discuss Work: NLRB Protection for Derogatory Employee Speech and Concerted Activity.

Kennedy, R. (2014). Sharing is Airing: Employee Concerted Activity on Social Media After Hispanics United. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 12, 182-182.

Merabet, S. M. (2013). The Sword and Shield of Social Networking: Harming Employers’ Goodwill Through Concerted Facebook Activity. Suffolk UL Rev., 46, 1161-1269.