Lee Enterprises Inc.’s Social Media Policy Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Social media policies determine what employees and employers should post online. They help in controlling the behaviors of employees through inspiring, advising, and guiding diverse case scenarios. They also hinder public relations crises, security breaches, management issues, enhance awareness of legal measures, and help maintain brand identity (NLRB, 2021). This paper explores National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Case 28-CA-23267 to determine whether Lee Enterprises, Inc violated the law as indicated in Section 8 (a) (1) by terminating a worker for posting tweets considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

The facts of the case and the determination of the NLRB

The case for this discussion is Lee Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Arizona Daily Star, NLRB Case No. 28-CA-23267. It involved charges presented to the NLRB to determine whether Lee Enterprise violated the law by terminating a worker for posting inappropriate and unprofessional tweets to a company’s Twitter account (NLRB, 2021). The NLRB concluded that the company’s action was within the law since the employer sent offensive messages that failed to involve protected concerted activity.

The case involved Lee Enterprises, Inc and its employee who was encouraged to post local Tuscan news on Twitter at the Arizona Daily Star website. This implied that the employee acted as the company’s online reporter, where he was expected to use different social media outlets to ensure that information reaches people who rarely read newspapers (Stohl, Etter, Banghart & Woo, 2017). The company intended to use the employee to facilitate the creation of traffic at the Arizona Daily Star website.

Lee Enterprises, Inc offered training to all its workers on the application of social media tools and sites. This enabled the company to start examining and following Twitter account under the “FOIA Exemption 6, 7 (C)]” name. The Twitter account offered direct access links and information about Lee Enterprises, Inc available at the Arizona Daily Star’s website (NLRB, 2021). These details were followed by tweets to the company to enhance public perception. Moreover, the employee’s tweets provided links to Myspace and Facebook accounts, where additional information was provided. This shows that the employee’s activities on Twitter were not associated with the Twitter feed for the Daily Star.

The workers posted multiple negative tweets at the Daily Star regarding other departments influencing the Human Resource Personnel to caution him against misdirection and dangerous content. The HR felt disturbed that inappropriate use of social media can negatively affect the company image and hinder its performance in the market (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). Workers were reminded to avoid violating the company’s social media policies. A meeting was held with senior editors a week after where it was made clear to the worker that personal feelings on the working conditions and choices should not be published. The worker confirmed that he was aware of the online policy as he left the meeting.

The worker disregarded the instructions given by the senior editors and Human Resource Director. He continued sending inappropriate information on Twitter regarding the organization on media outlets. This created a negative impact on the company since these tweets attracted mixed reactions. Managing editors called the worker for yet another meeting without involving the Human Resource Manager and Executive Editors (NLRB, 2021). The Managing Editor indicated her concerns about the worker’s content and expressed dissatisfaction with the way his tweets were being handled online. The worker was instructed to stop tweeting until next week when a meeting involving all the parties would be held.

Warnings from his manager could not stop him from sending negative information on social media. He removed the upper management from his account and continued tweeting (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). The company disciplined the worker by extending a forced time off that was not payable for affecting the organizational confidence and causing other negative implications. Later, the worker was terminated for failing to adhere to the company regulations. The NLRB supported the decision to fire the employee because of sending inappropriate materials even after a series of warnings.

The decision of the NLRB or court in the case

I agree with the NLRB that the company did not violate the law since the worker had written offensive and inappropriate postings that failed to protect the concerted activity. The board considered the fact that both parties agreed that the worker had met with the Human Resource Director, where he was warned against sending negative tweets. However, he disregarded these warnings and continued posting inappropriate information about the company, becoming a threat to his employer (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). It was clear that the worker was interested in making public excitement while harming the wellbeing of his employer.

The worker’s complaints that the termination was against the law were baseless since he violated his terms of employment and ignored instructions from his managers. The law governing policies could not stop the firing of the worker since directives were focused on his actions. Although labor laws protect workers, they also encourage everyone to adhere to the company’s rules and regulations.

How the decision in the case could lead to better or worse employee relations in the company

The case is likely to create better employee relations in the workplace since it would promote responsibility and accountability. Workers would be encouraged to do what is right and avoid engaging in activities that can affect employers. One example that I can borrow from the case is the statement of the Human Resource Director that workers must “use common sense” when sending information online (NLRB, 2021). Since everyone can determine what is right, workers must show maturity by behaving ethically and ensuring that their activities support organizational development. The statement can play a role in the development of a beneficial culture where every worker would feel motivated to work hard and develop interests aligning with those of the company. This would enhance public relations and promote productivity.

Common sense is a beneficial asset that can help eliminate many devastating incidents happening in my workplace. The case outcome would enable workers to understand their boundaries and establish a balance that would support the appropriate use of social media outlets. Common sense implies that workers must consider the impact of their tweet and strive to make the most appropriate decision regarding their content and timing. They must avoid undermining their relationships with their employers by sending offensive or unsuitable information (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). Workers must understand that their financial success depends on the wellbeing of their employer, and any effort to promote their workplace plays a role in the improvement of their future. The NLRB decision can promote employee relations through encouraging and supporting the making of appropriate choices that would promote livelihood and trigger economic advancement.

How to communicate the decision to employees or supervisors

Giving notice to employees in writing is the best way to communicate the case. The communication should be posted on the company’s notice board. The same message should be passed via email and invite employees for a training organized by the HR team about office communication (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). The HR department should insist that all employees must comply with and recognize the company rules when dealing with social media.

A social media policy as a good approach/method

Social media is an appropriate tool when it comes to marketing a company’s products and services. In today’s digital world, customers are not interested in the geographical position of a company. They search for information online where they communicate with the support remotely for queries, orders, and inquiries. The social media platforms mostly used by companies include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). However, for these platforms to be useful to both the company and the customers, policies are necessary to control their use. Social media rules are important in regulating employees’ activities on these platforms (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). These policies should reflect a company’s culture and are designed to reduce risks by employees.

Things to include in a social media policy

There should be no derogatory or negative statements on all social media platforms. Such statements pose a great risk to the business as they may affect the relationship between the firm and its stakeholders. Use of common sense when stating an injustice or a complaint on social media is necessary. People have different experiences in the workplace, and when aggrieved, some tend to react weirdly and post inappropriate information on the company’s social media platforms (Bennett & Manoharan, 2017). This rule ensures that such employees are held accountable for their actions. Infringement of company social media policies will attract remedial action between the employee, HR, and the management. This means that disciplinary action has to be taken upon the involved employee in the form of suspension, withdrawal of some benefits, or even being sacked as per the company’s rules.

References

Bennett, L. V., & Manoharan, A. P. (2017). The use of social media policies by US municipalities. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 317-328.

United States Government National Labor Relations Board, [NLRB], (2021). Lee Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Arizona Daily StarCase 28-CA-23267. United States Government National Labor Relations Board. Web.

Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. (2017). Social media policies: Implications for contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 413-436.

Click Here To Order Now!