Human Resources Management (HRM)

HRMD 620

Week 3

Reading  

This article summarizes the RLA in fairly easy terms to understand. To see the entire document in the library, it may be necessary to download it. 

 Federal Railroad Administration.  (2012, September 27).  Highlights of the Railway Labor Act

(“RLA”), and the U. S. Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) role in RLA disputes.

This article explains in a well-organized way what concerted activity is and the criteria for judging it.

Long, J. S. (2015). #Fired:  The National Labor Relations Act and employee outbursts in the age

of social media.  Boston College Law Review, 56(3), 1217-1247.

This article illustrates how the policies stated in employee handbooks can contribute to violation of employee rights.  Please note that, while the NLRB report provides good guidance on the Board’s position, it is not binding.  NLRB decisions can be appealed to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals.  

Droke, M., Murphy, D., Herman, S., Bernhard, R., & Markison, J.  (2015).  NLRB report concludes

that many common handbook policies violate the NLRA.  Employee Relations Law Journal,

41(2), 39-44.  Retrieved from http://www.aspenpublishers.com/

ANSWER

Human Resource Management: Case Study

NLRB is involved with unionized employees and those who are not. In the case of Evans Matt, matt has a case against his employers and could win the case against the company for unlawful termination. NLRB focuses mostly on the employee handbook. In this case, the employee handbook of this company is unlawful because it violates the employee’s NLRA rights. Section 7 protects the rights of the employee to communicate with the news media and other third parties about the terms and conditions of their employment (Droke et al., 2015). According to the HR department, Evans was terminated because of posting a disparaging post against his company, which violates section 8 of the employee handbook. Evans posted his concerns about his company on Facebook, which is his right according to section 7 of NLRA, and therefore, the employee should not have terminated him for practicing his lawful right to talk about his working conditions openly. From the Facebook post placed in his file, Evans expressed his concerns about his workplace and salary. An employee has the right to bargain with his employers for a better salary and a better working environment.

Mr. Evans has the upper hand in this case. The only play the company has in Evan’s case is that he signed the receipt of the employee handbook and agreed to be terminated at any time without any reason. However, taking his case to court would lead to several lawsuits and the scrutiny of their employee handbook. It could also encourage other employees to sue for their rights to unionize. The violations of the NLRA laws in their handbooks could be in the limelight, negatively affecting the company. The best action with Mr. Evans is to settle. They could also try to address the issues in their employee handbook to avoid further incidents. The issues highlighted in the post made by Evans should also be addressed. These issues include improving the employees working conditions and giving their employees a bargaining chance for their salaries and commissions. Some of his co-workers on the post made comments about the supervisor having to go, which is also an indicator of the supervisor having negative relations with his employees. These are the areas the company should address to prevent a repeat of the same incident as with Mr. Evans. The company should also know that discussing working conditions or stating an opinion on the working conditions is protected employee rights and should not be grounds for terminating an employee.

Ms. Dawson’s case is easier than the one of Mr. Evans. The NLRA does not protect the speech made by Ms. Dawson, and therefore she does not have a case. She could make the freedom of speech play, but the freedom of speech applies to the government, and therefore, a private company has the right to terminate her for violating company policy (Estlund, 2020). The company could also use the employment at will clause signed by Ms. Dawson, citing that she signed the clause and therefore the company has the right to terminate her employment at any time. The company’s section 8 employee handbook policy could, however, find itself in trouble again even in Ms. Dawson’s case because, according to the NLRB report, policies prohibiting employees from engaging in disrespectful negative inappropriate, or rude conduct towards the company or management will be found unlawful absent of further clarification. In this case, the company does not provide further clarification, which means that their employee handbook is unlawful.

The best play, in this case, would be the insubordination play. The company could claim that the post depicted the employee as insubordinate and disrespectful to her superior. Rules prohibiting conduct that amounts to insubordination are lawful. In the case of Ms. Dawson, she was disrespectful to the manager by posting about the sales manager and inviting ridicule on him. This could be viewed as grounds for disciplinary action to be taken against her, which was done through termination. By presenting these facts to the lawyer, Ms. Dawson will likely back off and not sue the company. It is, however, important for the human resource department in the company to review their employee handbook to make sure they are not violating the rights of their employees (office of public affairs, 2017). They should use both cases as a lesson on the things they should change in their company. The employee handbook, in this case, landed them in trouble because their employee handbook contains unlawful policies. They should also understand that the NLRB protects all employees, even those who are not unionized. The fact that they do not have unions in their company does not mean that their employees cannot sue them for unlawful termination. Therefore, they should be careful when terminating their employees. Ms. Dawson does not have a case here, and therefore her termination was lawful. Her case will not proceed unless she finds her new angle, which at this point is almost impossible.

References

Droke, M., Murphy, D., Herman, S., Bernhard, R., & Markison, J.  (2015).  NLRB report concludes that many common handbook policies violate the NLRA.  Employee Relations Law Journal, 41(2), 39-44. Retrieved from: https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2015/03/nlrb-report-concludes-that-many-common-handbook

Estlund, C. (2020). Individual employee rights at work. In Comparative employment relations in the global economy (pp. 191-214). Routledge.

National Labor Relations Act of 1935; 29 U. S. C.  §151 et seq.  (West 1993). https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/ley-de-relaciones-obrero-patronales

Office of Public Affairs.  (2017).  NLRB establishes new standards governing

 workplace policies and upholds the no-camera policy in Boeing. https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-establishes-new-standard-governing-workplace-policies-and-upholds-no