Be careful what you ask for...you just might get it.

It continues to be readily apparent that companies are struggling to find exactly where the line should be drawn between appropriate social media policy enforcement and the rights of workers under the NLRA.

On April 6, social media legal circles were all a 'twitter' upon the announcement that the NLRB will issue a complaint against Thompson Reuters due to its "discussion" with an employee after what Reuters believed was a questionable Twitter post. While it is believed that this is the first NLRB action related to Twitter, it comes right on the heals of the settlement of the claim related to the firing of Dawnmarie Souza by American Medial Response of Connecticut, for statements made about her supervisor on Facebook. As the Souza case was settled prior to the entry of a formal decision, this case presents one of the first opportunities for a formal line in the sand to be drawn with respect to the proper enforcement of Social Media policies and an employee's rights to criticize an employer through social media.  

Here, Reuters, in what appears to have been an attempt to start a positive conversation on how Reuters could make itself "the best place to work," asked employees for comments via Twitter on what it could do to improve.  Taking the opportunity presented, Reuters environmental reporter Deborah Zabrenko (@dzabarenko) tweeted that "One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members."

Soon after posting the tweet, Ms. Zabarenko received a call, at home, informing her that her post had violated a Reuters policy that employees were not to say anything publicly that could damage the reputation of Reuters.  Ms. Zabarenko raised the issue of intimidation and the NLRB is now suing Reuters for violation of a workers right to discuss working conditions (which, ironically is exactly what Reuters asked its workers to do when it asked for suggestions on how to make Reuters the best place to work). 

While I'm not an NLRA, or employment law expert, this does strike me as an interesting case.  The issues presented in the Facebook/Souza claim (calling supervisor the equivalent of a mental patient) seemed much farther removed from legitimate criticism of the working environment than those present here.  Although I won't pretend to predict the ultimate outcome of the claim, it provides another example of how social media continues to vex even those companies that are trying to take advantage of the medium. 

In some respects, I have to commend Reuters for using social media to ask the question: "How can we make this the best place to work," as that is exactly the kind of conversation that can be constructive via social media, but in using social media, you have to be prepared for answers that you sometimes don't like.  This is not to say that employees have a free reign with their social media comments, they don't, and sometimes what you say can and should have repercussions, but knowing what sort of statements are actionable is essential.  What is important is that your company have a well thought out social media policy which considers these issues before they become legal problems, and that those enforcing your social media policy know and understand the ramifications of their actions in enforcing the policy.