Wk 2 Study:
Social Media Policies, Concerted Activity and HR Management
MGMT410 Human Resource Management
1.) Ethically, and in the spirit capitalism, few should question the right of an employer to discipline an employee who used Facebook, Twitter or other social media to complain about his employer, employer's business practices or to make disparaging comments about his supervisor or co-workers. As an employee, you represent your place of employment. Typically, there are routes to pursue complaints. If not, then it is just a matter of being an adult and discussing the issue to come to a reasonable conclusion.
In this case, we will look at an unfair labor practice (ULP) ...view middle of the document...
This all stemmed from an on the job incident. (Advice Memorandum)
The case settled before making any administrative or judicial ruling.
2.) I agree and disagree with the argument presented. I tend to agree with the fact that supervision denied an employee the right to representation. Had this representation been granted, the supervisor would have the statement that he desired, or that was common practice. As a matter of fact, the employee may have found that providing a statement, would have cleared her of any wrong doing. Brevity of the eventual statement ultimately leads AMR to believe more in the charges than the employee. I can understand not wanting to provide a statement. It states in the Advice Memorandum that disciplinary action usually followed written statements.
I disagree with the argument that the Facebook rant was a concerted activity. First, this was posted on a personal page and not on the union page (if existing). Looking at the content of the posts, there is absolutely no organization concerning union, bargaining, aid, or official union counsel.
I further contest that the Internet posting policy is too broad. It clearly states, “Employees are prohibited from making disparaging, discriminatory or defamatory comments when discussing the Company or the employee’s superiors, co-workers and/or competitors.” (Advise Memorandum) Moreover, this “blogging” was only a small portion of the termination reasons. The rest of the cited reasoning was due to lack of professionalism.
3.) Since this case was settled and did not go to court, it will be unreasonably presumed that AMR was wrong on all accounts. Employees that will feel empowered against current supervision should everyone remain in their current positions. The relationship does not appear to have been very strong in the beginning as the Supervisor seemed to be absent for some reason. Facebook comments lead me to believe that few employees were satisfied with current leadership. This situation will only get worse if reorganization does not take place.
4.) On the plus side, I would have AMR address their HRM and lawyers for an exhaustive review of the company and employee policies along with researching and fostering a proper union relationship. Restructuring of the work shifts is a minimal action that must take place—taking caution as not to present a perception of punishment. I would also advise that AMR to provide remedial training for employees concerning the treatment and interaction with customers and associated partner agencies. Alongside of this training, AMR should create an On-the-Job module to guide proper company procedures for work documentation. Although this is coming to...