Introduction
The term protected concerted activity is used legally in regards to the labor policy to safeguard the employees against retaliation from their employers in the United States.it outlines the activities that the workers may take part in without fearing the employer's retribution (Trotter, 2015). In instances of liberal markets where the employees have quickly fired for example USA, the protected concerted activity issue has become an essential protection tool for the workers. The law grants the employees the right to work and act together towards the betterment of their working conditions and wages, in presence or absence of a union. Hence, protected concerted activity occurs when more than two employees take measures to improve the terms and conditions of the work environment .However, it has extended to the single employees who might speak on behalf of themselves or other employees regarding the workplace. It’s important to note that an employee who decides to tell a particular truth about the workplace typically known as a whistleblower and the activity is not concerted if he or she does not discuss it with the co-workers. The confidential information that is shared by the whistleblowers is secured by the National Labor Relations Act it is for this reason that employees feel secure when they share such information (Louymilan, & Doust, 2015). The Act does not limit in any way the time, place or manner in which the workers engage in concerted activities. Additionally, the general counsel of the union Board has agreed that the manner in which employees chose to share issues at the workplace through using social media such as Twitter and Facebook are protected against retaliation.
We have two cases of employees exercising their protected concerted activity. As a result, they were fired from their workplaces respectively. In the case of Parexel International, LLC, and an employee was fired after she complained to her supervisor about a difference of her salary with another employee despite them doing the same job. Similarly in the Facebook scenario, the employee, Dawnmarie Souza was fired after she posted her views on the supervisor.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the contrary, the nurse at Pexel was terminated from work after raising concerns about the payment of wages. On the other hand, MS Souza was fired not because she took to the social network to give derogatory remarks about her supervisor, but rather was fired because of various complaints concerning her behavior. Another similar issue between the two cases is that both are not protected concerted activities. The individuals are giving claims so as to improve their terms and conditions of work ( Trotter, 2015).
After the investigations, the general counsel decided that the nurse had been unlawfully discharged from work as she had engaged in protected concerted activity. The judge found that the nurse had been fired for such conversations and that it was an act by the hospital's management to shut down other employees from complaining about the same. Further, the judge said that although the nurse’s claims were protected, she had not engaged in any concerted activity, therefore, recommended the dismissal of the allegation. Consequently, the labor board gave its verdict on the firing of Souza. It termed the process as illegal and accused the company of denying her the services of union representation during the review of investigations against her (Hogan, 2015) . According to the board, criticizing the bosses on social networking sites is a protected concerted activity.
Protected concerted activity has an impact on the union and union-free workplaces. For instance, it restricts the employers from forcing or interfering with the expression of views by the workers for example through the social networking sites. Additionally, the workers have a right to choose what unions they want to support without fear of being judged by the employers. Consequently, the concerted activity applies to all employees hence in case of unlawful termination or firing from work; they are liable to getting help from the labor board which ensures that such unpleasant situations do not happen to workers in the wake of demanding and impatient employees ( Hogan, 2015). This has helped many people in the US get reinstated and also be compensated from such companies which do not identify the Protected Concerted Activities.
Workers who do not belong to unions have a right to request their co-workers to be present at their investigatory interviews. This can happen in cases where the employee feels that the presence of the other worker to help determine the type of discipline one should get. On the other hand, the term has given too much freedom to workers for instance; they can discuss business or individuals in a negative aspect and yet do not face any consequences as they are protected under the NLRA ( Hogan, 2015). This has in times caused unhealthy relations with the employers because they are helpless as the workers in some instances sell the businesses to the public in a negative
The human resource management (HRM) needs to ensure that they are not violating the protected concerted activities of the employees’. For starters, the HRM should comply with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).During events such as union campaigns, the management has to follow the guidelines of what it can and cannot do. For instance, the company should not interfere with the employee’s choice of supporting a union (Trotter, 2015).
Before retaliating on the employees, the HRM should ensure that it takes an action which applies to all the staff of the company, even the best ones (Louymilan, & Doust, 2015). The claims should be investigated as whether they are valid or just propaganda by the worker. This will enable the people in charge to be justified in firing an employee and avoid problems with the NLRA. Also, the HRM has to consult with the employment counsel to determine whether to terminate or discipline an employee who engages in protected concerted activity. In case the workers raise issues affecting them or the work environment, the HRM should respond and if make possible corrections ( Trotter, 2015).
Conclusion
The US government has ensured that its employees have the liberty to discuss issues in their work environment. By introducing the Protected Concerted Activity under the National Labor Relations Act, the freedoms and rights of the workers have been prioritized and employees empowered. There are fewer cases of work termination, unwilling transfers or firing as the NLRA serves to promote such interests. The Protected Concerted activity ensures that the employees are free from retaliation from their employers. Thus, they have to make sure that the workers concerted activities are not violated in any way. Subsequently, the term has impacted workers belonging and those who don’t belong to the unions. Therefore, as much as the concerted activity exists, the employees should not use it as a tool to break or manipulate the top management. Similarly, the employers should see this as an opportunity to create good working relationships with the employees.
References
Baier, T., Rogge-Solti, A., Mendling, J., & Weske, M,. (2015) Matching of events and activities: an approach based on behavioral constraint satisfaction: In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1225-1230) ACM.
Hogan, B. J. (2015). Awakening the Spirit of the NLRA: The Future of Concerted Activity through Social Media W. Va. L. Rev. , 118 , 841
Louymilan, A. D., & Doust, S. J,. (2015). A Solution for Closing the Gap between Current Abilities and Future Needs in HRM: Some Experiential Instance. KUROSHIO , 8 (1), 29-41.
Trotter, R,. (2015). Protected Concerted Activity Under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: A New Frontier for Non-Union Employees to Organize to Improve Terms of Employment Without a Union. Journal of Management Policy and Practice , 16 (1), 54
