The NLRB firm the article was protected because the employees voiced related to safety, (Protected Concerted Activity). A complaint was issued for the case to appear in court. On the second day of track, the company settled with the employees.
2). I agree with the decision of the NLRB because these workers feared for their lives and safety. The employees were trying to get the word out about this company and try to get them to change their ways. They didn’t want to get fired, they wanted to feel safe and get treated like humans not slaver. What would it be any different if they called someone from the city to complain about the unsafe environment they work in? It is the same concept. An article everyone can see and the government, I believe that is has to provide this information as well.
3). Well, there is a recent incident at my work that concerned an employee talk back to a customer. I work in a motel as a front desk Clark and one of my co- workers was upset about salary, so she thought it was smart to post review on website about the GM of motel and to make matters bad, so she knew the general manager’s name and used their name on review. My co-worker got a call and fired.
She got fired because it states in our handbook that we are not allowed to talk about our company on any social media. That includes guests, managers,…