Workplace violence is a subject that most people do not like to discuss. After all, most times when workplace incidents make the news, they are shocking and frightening, and it’s simply easier to say “That will never happen here.” Unfortunately, that’s not always true, as nearly 2 million workers reported having been victims of workplace violence each year, with even more going unreported.
Federal laws only provide general guidance, in the form of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which requires employers to provide a safe workplace. While workplace violence is not always preventable, there are proactive steps you can take to reduce the risks and hopefully prevent a situation before it becomes dangerous, including:
- Training managers and supervisors on the early warning signs of potential violence and how to address them
- Implementing a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program
- Clearly communicating to employees that the company wants to know when there are threats or incidents, and how serious the company is about handling issues
- Making a good faith effort to investigate complaints where there is a reasonable concern that the employee’s behavior may cause harm to themselves or others
- Considering additional security measures (sign-in desk, key-card systems, increased lighting, and video surveillance)
- Identifying to all employees the contact person for communicating safety concerns or incidents
It is important to note, when preparing preventative measures, that workplace violence is not limited to employees; it also includes customers, clients and visitors.
Of course, while all of these measures will raise costs, it will likely be less expensive than the costs of a workplace violence incident. A 2006 study by Liberty Mutual reported assaults and violent acts as the 10th leading cost of non-fatal occupation injuries, at a cost of $400 million. Indirect costs, though difficult to quantify can include diverted attention and resources, loss of public trust, and reputational damage. Workplace violence can result in a number of legal actions against employers, including civil litigation, OSHA citations or fines and workers’ compensation. The key, as always, is finding a balanced approach that works for your particular business.
This article is authored by attorney Casey L. Sipe and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.
Yikes, Judge Says Employer Can’t Ban the Use of Social Media During Company Time
by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 11/16/2012A National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) administrative law judge (commonly referred to as an ALJ) recently directed an employer to remove a provision from its social media policy that prohibited employees from using social media during “company time,” on the basis that such a prohibition violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
In the EchoStar Technologies, LLC case, an employee challenged two provisions in the company’s updated employee handbook that related to the company’s social media policy. Specifically, the employee challenged the prohibition against making disparaging or defamatory comments about the company and the prohibition against employees using social media with company resources during company time.
The employee argued that such prohibitions violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, which bans employer interference with an employee’s Section 7 rights. Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees’ rights to engage in unionization activities and the right of nonunion employees to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The NLRB general counsel’s office later filed a complaint in the case.
In ruling that both challenged provisions should be removed from the company’s employee handbook, the ALJ noted that this case centered around whether a reasonable employee would view the company’s social media policy as chilling unionization activities or other protected concerted activities. The test for making such a determination is whether an employee’s Section 7 rights “suffered a reduction or inhibition” as a result of the policy. This test is applied with the reasonable person standard, meaning the determination considers how a reasonable person would react to the prohibition, not whether the employees involved actually felt threatened.
The ALJ struck down the ruling banning “disparaging comments” on social media sites on the grounds that it was similar to another case where the NLRB did not allow a rule prohibiting “derogatory” comments about the employer. In Southern Maryland Hospital Center, 293 N.L.R.B. 1209, 132 LRRM 1031 (1989), the NLRB explained that such a ban is problematic because “an assertion that an employer overworks or underpays its employees, which would constitute the most elementary kind of union propaganda, could fairly be regarded as ‘derogatory’ toward the employer.” Accordingly, in EchoStar, the ALJ held that the prohibition against disparaging comments intruded on employees’ Section 7 activities and ordered the prohibition removed from the employee handbook.
Unfortunately, the ruling in EchoStar did not shed much light on why the ALJ struck down the employer’s prohibition against the use of social media on company time. Nevertheless, the ALJ made it clear that such a ban also needed to be removed from the employer’s handbook. We can only surmise that the ALJ agreed with the general counsel’s argument that essentially said the ban was too broad because it could be interpreted as prohibiting employees from participating in social media activities through their own devices and during their breaks, lunch, and before and after work. Notably, the general counsel’s office pointed out that the phase “company time” is ambiguous and had already been found to be problematic in other cases because it does not let employees know that protected activities may occur on breaks, during lunch and before or after work. Although the employer argued that it had a huge problem with employees using social media for personal matters during work hours its argument was to no avail.
Lesson for Employers: Social media policies raise a host of issues. Because overly broad restrictions on employees’ social media use might be deemed to violate the NLRA, employers should seek the assistance of an attorney when crafting their social media policy. The attorneys at Harmon & Davies, P.C. are here to assist you with all such needs.
This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.
Posted in Labor & Employment, NLRB, Social Media | No Comments »