Gosh what a worthless morning… i was trying to go online all morning so i could post this article and a few other blog entries… and couldn’t….. and the weird thing is that when i finally did log into my account both the gingerbread man and my search for justice were already hyper linked… as if i had already used them today.. another wired thing is that instead of having my igoogle account as my home page.. i have yahoo… that hasn’t happened since Celia ( pronounced Shelia ) lived at my mother apartments… and the weird thing is that she disappeared as quickly as Ron.. and any of the recent tenants that seem to disappear with some of my inheritance.. and some of my mothers possessions… weird huh? i cant say for sure its criminal but i know my mom has had the three apartments since the early 1990’s….and it just hasn’t been the same….
Should i be worried that in 2004 Carla told me that my family thinks i am dead and that i should be happy with what ever family i get? or that i was told that my inheritance was already given to someone else… and i will get nothing.. that they are using my inheritance ? i mean who are these freaks? but i am off the subject… i was going to post the article from the wall street journal….
here it is:
A company that fired a worker after she posted negative remarks about her boss on Facebook has settled a complaint brought by the National Labor Relations Board by agreeing to revamp its rules to ensure they don’t restrict workers’ rights, the NLRB said.
A separate, private settlement was reached between the employer—ambulance service American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc.—and the employee, though terms of that agreement weren’t immediately available. The worker, Dawnmarie Souza, was a member of the Teamsters union and the Teamsters represented her before the NLRB.
The case had become a test of how much latitude employees may have when posting comments about work matters from their home computers on social media sites such as Facebook.
When the National Labor Relations Board issued its complaint about the firing last fall, it alleged the firing was illegal because the online posting constituted “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act.
That law allows employees to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with co-workers and others, and the employee involved in the case had posted comments about her supervisor and responded to further comments from her co-workers, the NLRB said.
The NLRB had also alleged the company maintained and enforced overly broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees.
At the time the complaint was announced, American Medical Response of
Connecticut denied the allegations and said the employee in question was discharged “based on multiple, serious complaints about her behavior.” The employee was also being held accountable for negative personal attacks that she posted on Facebook about a coworker, the company said at the time, and added that it believes those statements were not concerted activity protected under federal law.
A spokeswoman for American Medical Response of Connecticut didn’t immediately respond Monday to a request for comment. A Facebook spokesman declined to comment. Ms. Souza couldn’t be reached for comment.
Under the terms of the settlement approved by the NLRB’s Hartford, Conn., Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg, the company agreed to revise its rules. The company agreed not to discipline or discharge employees for engaging in discussions about wages and other work issues when not on the job, the NLRB said.
The problems began when the employee, a Teamsters union member, was questioned about a customer complaint regarding her work.
The NLRB alleged that the employer illegally denied the employee union representation during an investigatory interview about the matter. The employee later posted the negative remark about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page from her home computer. The comment drew supportive responses from her co-workers and led to more negative remarks from the employee.
As part of the settlement with the NLRB, the company also promised that employee requests for union representation will not be denied in the future and that employees will not be threatened with discipline for requesting union representation.
Write to Melanie Trottman at melanie.trottman@wsj.com