The Experts below are selected from a list of 57 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Christine Neylon O'brien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The first Facebook firing case under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: Exploring the limits of labor law protection for concerted communication on social media
Suffolk University Law Review, 2011Co-Authors: Christine Neylon O'brienAbstract:The emergence of social media, from Facebook to Myspace and Linkedin to Twitter—much like the earlier evolution of email, IM, and web 2.0—have changed the way people communicate, expanding the virtual horizons for social networking and business promotion on these popular communications platforms. Smartphones and other portable internet data generators such as iPads, and even internet hotspots incorporated into motor vehicles, have encouraged the blurring of work and personal time such that people are tethered to their devices, checking their work and personal messages wherever they are and whatever else they are doing. In the first case of its kind, the National Labor Relations Board (Labor Board or NLRB) issued a complaint against an employer, American Medical Response of Connecticut (AMR), for the suspension and firing of an Employee who posted negative comments about her supervisor on her Facebook page. The federal agency alleged that the employer retaliated against the Terminated Employee for her postings and for requesting the presence of her union representative at an investigatory interview that led to discipline. Most importantly, the Labor Board maintained that the employer’s rules on blogging and internet posting, which included social media use, standards of conduct relating to discussing co-workers and superiors, and solicitation and distribution, were overbroad, interfering with Employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB, as the federal agency that enforces the statutory rights of all Employees covered by the NLRA—not just those who belong to unions—signaled that it is ready to prosecute companies 1. Professor and Chair of Business Law, Carroll School of Management, Boston College. B.A., Boston College, J.D., Boston College Law School. The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation for the research assistance and ideas of Margo E. K. Reder, Research Associate & Adjunct Lecturer, Boston College, and Jaspreet Dosanjh, M.B.A./J.D. candidate, Boston College. She also wishes to thank Professors David P. Twomey and Stephanie Greene, Boston College, and Jonathan J. Darrow, S.J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School, for their review of the manuscript and helpful comments. O'BRIEN_LEAD_WDF 11/22/2011 8:53 PM 30 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLV:29 with policies that unduly interfere with Employee communication about work matters such as wages, hours, and working conditions, even on social media. The AMR case puts employers on notice that rules affecting Employee communication, including the use of email and social media during nonwork time, should be reviewed to ensure that the rules do not violate the NLRA. This article outlines tips for employers and Employees to stay within the boundaries of labor law.
-
The First Facebook Firing Case Under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: Exploring the Limits of Labor Law Protection for Concerted Communication on Social Media
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Christine Neylon O'brienAbstract:The emergence of social media, from Facebook to Myspace and Linkedin to Twitter - much like the earlier evolution of email, IM and web 2.0 - have changed communications, expanding the virtual horizons for social networking and business promotion on these popular communications platforms. Smartphones, and other data interfaces including iPads and eReaders, and even internet hotspots in motor vehicles, have encouraged the blurring of work and personal time such that people are tethered to their devices, checking their work and personal messages wherever they are and whatever else they are doing. In the first case of its kind, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against an employer, American Medical Response of Connecticut (AMR), for the suspension and firing of an Employee who posted negative comments about her supervisor on her personal password-protected Facebook page. The NLRB alleged the employer retaliated against the Terminated Employee for her Facebook postings and for requesting a union representative at an investigatory interview that led to her discipline, thus violating her Weingarten right. Most importantly, the NLRB maintained that the employer’s social media policy was overbroad because its rules on blogging and internet posting, standards of conduct relating to discussing co-workers and superiors, and solicitation and distribution, interfered with Employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The AMR case and the NLRB’s ongoing interest in employer social media policies has signaled that the agency will prosecute companies whose policies interfere with Employee communications concerning wages, hours, and working conditions, and other matters for mutual aid or protection on social media sites. Employers should review their policies governing Employee communications, including the use of email and social media during non-work time, to ensure compliance with the NLRA.
Enegren Sofia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Gå runt lagen och gå hem på dagen - En analys av bestämmelsen om ogiltighetsförklaring vid uppsägning i 34 § LAS
Lunds universitet Institutionen för handelsrätt, 2017Co-Authors: Sandberg Julia, Enegren SofiaAbstract:Denna kandidatuppsats utreder rättsläget beträffande ogiltighetstalan vid uppsägning. Dess syfte är att komparera bestämmelserna om ogiltighetstalan vid uppsägning mot de som reglerar ogiltighetstalan vid avsked, för att ge grund åt påståendet att det är mer fördelaktigt att avskeda även i fall då åtgärdens föranledande skäl endast räcker till för en uppsägning. De mest centrala lagrummen för uppsatsen är 34 och 35 §§ LAS. Genom en rättsanalytisk metod kommer utredningen söka besvara frågor såsom vilka konsekvenserna blir av ett överutnyttjande av avsked. Detta kommer ske genom att rättsfall från Arbetsdomstolen, förarbeten och doktrin vägs mot lagtext. De slutsatser som kan dras från rättsutredningen är att det i de flesta fall är ekonomiskt fördelaktigt att avskeda även i klara uppsägningsfall. Detta beror framförallt på att den anställde, till skillnad från vid avsked, har rätt att kvarstå i tjänst under en ogiltighetstvist om uppsägning. Det råder skilda meningar mellan arbetsmarknadens parter om hur väl den gällande lagstiftningen fungerar och vilka eventuella förändringar som kan tänkas leda till dess förbättring. I den slutliga analysen ges egna förslag på förändringar som skulle kunna leda till att antalet onödiga avskedsfall skulle minska.This bachelor thesis investigates the legal situation regarding the annulment of terminations. The purpose of the essay is to compare the provisions concerning annulment of terminations against those that regulate the annulment of dismissals. This will be done in order to provide the basis for the claim, that dismissal is the more favourable choice in cases where the action taken in reality only is enough for terminating the Employee. The most sufficient law principles of the essay are the 34th and 35th paragraphs of LAS. Through a proper analytical approach, the investigation aims to answer questions, such as the consequences of an overutilization of dismissals. This will be done by weighing the jurisprudence of the Labour Court, the preparatory work and the doctrine against the provisions of the act. The conclusions that can be drawn from the judicial inquiry is that it in most cases is advantageous, from an economic perspective, to dismiss an Employee even in situations where it’s clear that the circumstances are only sufficient for termination. This is mainly due to the fact that a Terminated Employee, unlike a dismissed Employee, have the right to remain in employment during a legal dispute regarding annulment of a termination. The opinion differs between the social partners on the labour market considering how well the current legislation is working, and which changes would improve it. In the final discussion of the essay, some own suggestions will be given regarding possible changes that could lead to a decreased number of unnecessary dismissals
Sofia Enegren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Gå runt lagen och gå hem på dagen - En analys av bestämmelsen om ogiltighetsförklaring vid uppsägning i 34 § LAS
2017Co-Authors: Julia Sandberg, Sofia EnegrenAbstract:This bachelor thesis investigates the legal situation regarding the annulment of terminations. The purpose of the essay is to compare the provisions concerning annulment of terminations against those that regulate the annulment of dismissals. This will be done in order to provide the basis for the claim, that dismissal is the more favourable choice in cases where the action taken in reality only is enough for terminating the Employee. The most sufficient law principles of the essay are the 34th and 35th paragraphs of LAS. Through a proper analytical approach, the investigation aims to answer questions, such as the consequences of an overutilization of dismissals. This will be done by weighing the jurisprudence of the Labour Court, the preparatory work and the doctrine against the provisions of the act. The conclusions that can be drawn from the judicial inquiry is that it in most cases is advantageous, from an economic perspective, to dismiss an Employee even in situations where it’s clear that the circumstances are only sufficient for termination. This is mainly due to the fact that a Terminated Employee, unlike a dismissed Employee, have the right to remain in employment during a legal dispute regarding annulment of a termination. The opinion differs between the social partners on the labour market considering how well the current legislation is working, and which changes would improve it. In the final discussion of the essay, some own suggestions will be given regarding possible changes that could lead to a decreased number of unnecessary dismissals.
Sandberg Julia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Gå runt lagen och gå hem på dagen - En analys av bestämmelsen om ogiltighetsförklaring vid uppsägning i 34 § LAS
Lunds universitet Institutionen för handelsrätt, 2017Co-Authors: Sandberg Julia, Enegren SofiaAbstract:Denna kandidatuppsats utreder rättsläget beträffande ogiltighetstalan vid uppsägning. Dess syfte är att komparera bestämmelserna om ogiltighetstalan vid uppsägning mot de som reglerar ogiltighetstalan vid avsked, för att ge grund åt påståendet att det är mer fördelaktigt att avskeda även i fall då åtgärdens föranledande skäl endast räcker till för en uppsägning. De mest centrala lagrummen för uppsatsen är 34 och 35 §§ LAS. Genom en rättsanalytisk metod kommer utredningen söka besvara frågor såsom vilka konsekvenserna blir av ett överutnyttjande av avsked. Detta kommer ske genom att rättsfall från Arbetsdomstolen, förarbeten och doktrin vägs mot lagtext. De slutsatser som kan dras från rättsutredningen är att det i de flesta fall är ekonomiskt fördelaktigt att avskeda även i klara uppsägningsfall. Detta beror framförallt på att den anställde, till skillnad från vid avsked, har rätt att kvarstå i tjänst under en ogiltighetstvist om uppsägning. Det råder skilda meningar mellan arbetsmarknadens parter om hur väl den gällande lagstiftningen fungerar och vilka eventuella förändringar som kan tänkas leda till dess förbättring. I den slutliga analysen ges egna förslag på förändringar som skulle kunna leda till att antalet onödiga avskedsfall skulle minska.This bachelor thesis investigates the legal situation regarding the annulment of terminations. The purpose of the essay is to compare the provisions concerning annulment of terminations against those that regulate the annulment of dismissals. This will be done in order to provide the basis for the claim, that dismissal is the more favourable choice in cases where the action taken in reality only is enough for terminating the Employee. The most sufficient law principles of the essay are the 34th and 35th paragraphs of LAS. Through a proper analytical approach, the investigation aims to answer questions, such as the consequences of an overutilization of dismissals. This will be done by weighing the jurisprudence of the Labour Court, the preparatory work and the doctrine against the provisions of the act. The conclusions that can be drawn from the judicial inquiry is that it in most cases is advantageous, from an economic perspective, to dismiss an Employee even in situations where it’s clear that the circumstances are only sufficient for termination. This is mainly due to the fact that a Terminated Employee, unlike a dismissed Employee, have the right to remain in employment during a legal dispute regarding annulment of a termination. The opinion differs between the social partners on the labour market considering how well the current legislation is working, and which changes would improve it. In the final discussion of the essay, some own suggestions will be given regarding possible changes that could lead to a decreased number of unnecessary dismissals
Judith H Holmes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Termination trauma: seven ways to minimize risk when discharging an Employee.
Pain physician, 2004Co-Authors: Judith H HolmesAbstract:In all likelihood, you will be faced with the prospect of discharging an Employee within the next year. In fact, the odds are good that you are contemplating an Employee termination right now. Unfortunately, the termination process is painful, and the aftermath can be worse. The costs of an employment termination are significant. The physician or medical group has the immediate expense of hiring a temporary Employee while going through the arduous task of interviewing and hiring a replacement. Then there are the additional direct costs, such as contracting with an employment agency, or assigning your office manager to place advertisements, conduct interviews and background checks, and complete the paperwork associated with hiring a new Employee. There are also many indirect, but not insignificant, costs associated with terminating an Employee. Office routine is disrupted, office morale is adversely affected, and productivity is decreased. Unfortunately termination often triggers litigation. Ineffective or unlawful employment policies and procedures can lead to costly lawsuits for wrongful termination, employment discrimination, harassment, invasion of privacy, and defamation. This article focuses on ways to minimize the direct and indirect costs of termination, and identifies practical policies and procedures you and your staff can implement to help insulate your practice against suits and claims brought by the Terminated Employee and third parties. It discusses the seven most important steps you can take to minimize your risks when terminating an Employee. Note: This article is intended as an overview of lawful termination strategies, and is not a substitute for legal advice from experienced employment counsel. Applicable laws vary from state to state and appropriate procedures may depend on specific factual situations. This article is not, and should not be construed as, legal advice.