Search form

NLRB Judge Holds Union Not Liable for 'Threats' Against Employees on Facebook Page

By Philip B. Rosen
  • January 9, 2013

In a ruling involving the National Labor Relations Act and employees’ or union members’ use of the popular social networking medium, “Facebook,” a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge has refused to liken threats made by union members on Facebook to threats made by those same union members who happened to be on a picket line or in person. In Amalgamated Transit Union, Local Union No. 1433, AFL-CIO and Charles Weigand (an individual), No. 28-CB-078377, union bus drivers for Veolia Transportation Services Inc., in Phoenix, Arizona, engaged in a six-day strike. During and after the strike, on the union’s Facebook page (and in person), members of the union threatened other employees with less favorable representation for refusing to participate in the strike. They also threatened those employees with physical harm.

One of the threatened employees filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union. After an investigation, the NLRB General Counsel determined there was enough evidence to issue a complaint. The GC alleged the union made “certain statements which restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to refrain from engaging in concerted activity by crossing the picket line.” The complaint further alleged the union had a duty to “disavow” such statements, but did not.

Administrative Law Judge Keltner Locke decided that the union’s Facebook page should not be seen as an “electronic extension” of the picket line, as argued by the General Counsel, because it is a private forum for free discussion while a picket line is a “public symbol that there is a labor dispute.” Judge Locke also noted that an actual picket line “confronts employees reporting for work with a stark and unavoidable choice” as opposed to a “website in cyberspace.” Lastly, the Judge concluded that asking the union to disavow someone else’s speech on its site was not equivalent to asking it to disavow its own threats and “would push the board’s remedial authority to the edge of the envelope and perhaps beyond.” In issuing this conclusion, Judge Locke essentially determined that individuals who made threats on the union’s Facebook page, even threats of violence, could not be considered “agents” of the union so as make the union liable under the NLRA, although the union could be held liable for such threatening comments made by its agents on the picket line itself. 

This decision continues a trend by the NLRB of protecting the nearly unfettered “expression” of both employees and unions in social media, at least where union or concerted activity can be discerned. 

If you have questions about this or other NLRB rulings affecting both union and non-union workers, please do not hesitate to contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. 

©2013 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 28, 2015

Employer Ambushed by Labor Board’s New Election Rule

September 28, 2015

Much has been written about the National Labor Relations Board’s new “ambush” election rules. The rules are a one-two punch to employers: first, by substantially shortening the pre-election period; and, second, by imposing onerous information disclosure obligations. (For more on the rules, see our article, Preparing for... Read More

September 11, 2015

U.S. Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Restore Definition of 'Joint Employer' under National Labor Relations Act

September 11, 2015

Senator Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Representative John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced legislation to curtail the National Labor Relations Board’s expansive new standard for determining... Read More

August 28, 2015

Labor Board Sets New Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status

August 28, 2015

A sharply divided National Labor Relations Board has announced a new standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015). One of the most significant decisions issued by the Board in recent years, it is likely to impact the... Read More

Related Practices