Take the events and the facts of the case; it is right to say that Jack was fired unlawfully. Like Jack, many employees in their workplaces face a myriad of challenges. Employers take advantage of their employees’ ignorance of the law and provision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, Jack has all the rights to believe that he was fired unfairly. The unfair termination of jack employment can be urged based on unfair labor practices. By definition, unfair labor practices as provided for by NLRB are conduct by employers or unions that violate the rights of employees. The employee rights outlined by NLRB include the right to organize, bargain collectively and participate in labor organizations of an employee’s choosing. Unfair labor practices also violate the NLRA of 1935. Jack’s employer fired him on the basis that he violated a courtesy policy which was part of the employee handbook. According to Jack’s employer, employees, without the exception of Jack, has the responsibility to uphold courtesy. In this regard, the employer believes that the posts by Jack on Facebook were disrespectful, used profanity language the result of which damaged the Company’s image and reputation. The charges against Jack by his employer are not substantial
The courtesy policy that Jack’s employer purports that he violated itself fails to comply with section 8(A) of the NLRA. According to the provision of this section, employees have the right to vocalize their opinions through self-organization. The sections state that any employer who denies their employees this right commits unfair labor practices. The provisions of section 8(A) is important to both the employees and the employer in the sense that it protects employees right by informing employers of their employees’ rights. Employers are therefore required by the act to follow the guidelines provided and ensure that the rights of their employees are safeguarded.
Going with the provisions of the NLRA, Jack’s employer did not comply with section 8(A). The termination, therefore, constitutes unlawful labor practices. The Facebook posts made by Jack were not meant to ruin the image or the reputation of the firm. Instead, the intention of the posts was to challenges employees within the firm face. From the comments made by Jack’s colleagues, it is true that there were severe issues with the state of affairs within the firm. Jack was therefore right to bring these issues into the light so that the management can take actions to rectify the ways things were conducted.
Jack’s employer asserts that his posts portrayed the firm negatively. They go on to add that they impacted the image of the firm negatively. This is to say that Jack violated the courtesy policy. The NLRA prohibits such policies that infringe the rights of employees to vocalize issues affecting them in their places of work. Although it does not have the right of employees to use social media, NLRA does protect that unfair termination as a result of unlawful labor policies or practices.
From the facts of the case, a violation has occurred. Jack’s employer has violated the provision of NLRA. According to $8%8%, if the offence is deemed to have occurred, the NLRB needs to issues a cease and a desist order. Besides, Jack needs back pay and reinstatement. The car dealership needs to reinstate Jack back to his position. An injunction ordering the abolishment of the courtesy policy need to be sent to the firm. Nevertheless, it is not in the hands of the NLRB to force any punitive penalties.
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?