What Happens When An Employee States, “Fire Me!” Do You Oblige Them?
When Employee Taunts Employer via Facebook to “FIRE ME. …Make my day. . .” NLRB Memo Concludes the Employer Can Go For It!
The National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel released an Advice Memorandum in and concluded that an employee was not engaged in protected concerted activity when she posted comments to a Facebook group message that taunted her employer to “FIRE ME … Make my day …”
The Charging Party worked for an employer with approximately nineteen employees. The Charging Employee along with a few current and former employees engaged in a private Facebook group message to organize a social event. The first hour of the exchange was non-eventful and focused on planning the social event. Things soon got interesting when a former employee made a joke. In response, the Charging Party mentioned that a former employee who had previously left was coming back to work and speculated that the employer may make the returning employee a supervisor. The Charging Party then attacked her current supervisor claiming he “tried to tell her something today and she said aren’t you the supervisor for mind and body … in other words back the freak off…” But Charging Party was not done there and added, that the employer was, and I quote, “full of shit … They seem to be staying away from me, you know I don’t bite my tongue anymore, FUCK … FIRE ME … MAKE my day …” Other than Charging Party, no other current employees took part in this portion of the conversation, but one did pipe up after Charging Party complained following a two hour lull that she had been deserted and there was no one to make herlaugh.” In response, the current employee said she made the Charging Party laugh and added “it’s getting bad here, it’s just annoying as hell. It’s always some dumb shit going on.” The Charging Party did not have anything substantive to add to this and no other current employee added anything else work-related.
As you might have guessed, one of the current employees included on the group message who did not say anything during the exchange showed the Facebook posts to the employer. The employer took Charging Party up on her request to be fired stating that it was “obvious” that she was not longer interested in working there, and indeed made her day.
The employee filed a charge alleging that her termination violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because her Facebook comments constituted protected concerted activity. In an Advice Memorandum, the NLRB Office of the General Counsel concluded that the employee’s Facebook message did not constitute protected concerted activity because they did not involve shared employee concerns over terms and conditions of employment. To understand this conclusion, it is important to understand the NLRB’s test for concerted activity, which is whether the activity is engaged “in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself” and includes circumstances where employees seek to “initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action,” and where individual employees bring “truly group complaints” to the employer’s attention. However, comments made “solely by and on behalf of the employee himself are not concerted” are not protected and neither is “mere griping” by an employee who does not look forward to any action.
Applying this to the facts at hand, the Advice Memorandum found that the employee’s comments merely expressed an “individual gripe rather than any shared concerns about working conditions.” Specifically, the employee’s comments telling a supervisor to “back the freak off”; stated her employer was “full of shit”; and that her employer should “FIRE ME … Make my day” reflected individual “griping” and personal contempt rather than shared employee concerns over terms and conditions of employment. In addition, there was no evidence that any of the Charging Party’s coworkers interpreted the postings as shared concerns over their working conditions, not even the posting “it’s getting bad here, it’s just annoying as hell” because it was ambiguous and bore no relation to the Charging Party’s earlier comments.
This one is a win for employers, but employers are still reminded to be cautious when terminating an employee for the things they say on social media. This case demonstrates that even when an employee’s comments on social media are so outrageous that they literally ask the employer to fire the employee, the employer must still do some analysis to determine whether the comments may constitute concerted protected activity under the NLRA. So employers keep the NLRB’s standard for concerted protected activity in mind before terminating an employer for social media posts and ask yourself: (1) What was said? (2) Who said it? (3) Who commented on it or chimed in on the conversation? (4) Could it be considered shared employee concerns about terms and conditions of employment?
Note: California employers all need to know that an employer cannot fire an employee for complaining about working conditions. An noted above, her complaints were not about working conditions but rather about her personal contempt of her employer.