Parexel Case Comparison Paper

Facebook is the largest gateway to social media communication, allowing you to stay in touch with friends, family, and public. Therefore, if Jackson had concerns about a customer, the human resources department would have been a better option. They specialize in employee relation issues, while keeping all information confidential. In our business, we take pride in our image, while building trustworthy relations with all customers. Jackson’s behavior on social media could potentially harm the relationship with this customer, present and future customers. When one shares information on

Northeast BMW prides themselves on the principle of “treating [their] employees and customers the way they want to be treated” (Lopiano & Watson 2). However, this principle is not reciprocated when Brett Buckley, a Northeast BMW salesperson for roughly 12 years, decides to misuse social media. One of the few reasonable explanation why Buckley would post two sarcastic and mocking posts against the Northeast BMW and Northeast Land Rover dealership is because he honestly thought, the information posted on his personal Facebook was private. According to the text, “it was his Facebook page and that what he posted to it was none of Thompson's or any other manager’s business” (Lopiano & Watson 1). In other words, he thought his personal Facebook had

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawnmarie stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawnmarie besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawn stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawn besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

The case that I have chosen for this case study is Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. & Carlos Ortiz, Case No. 3-CA-2787). In this case the NLRB reinstates five employees that were terminated for engaging in protected concerted activity on social media. Hispanics United of Buffalo involved several non-union employees who complained about a coworker on Facebook.

World Color Press, Inc. it was a worker’s compensation claim which involved allegations of federal law violations. The plaintiff in this case was the senior vice president and chief financial officer was the defendant in the case. The senior vice president was hired in 1974 and fired 1982 in which he alleged was a retaliatory discharge. He was opposed to the company’s accounting practices and suggested it violated federal securities law. His claim was based on general accounting practices and principles. He noted that these principles would have overstated and inflated the income in 1981 and asset valuation of the company. The court agreed with the plaintiff on his claims as well another section of federal securities law which states it is illegal to make false statements to the federal government. This was made clear in mandated public policy. During this case the Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. was cited this case involved federal regulations on safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Palmateer v. International Harvester Co which reported alleged criminal activity to the local police. The mandated public policy help verify the federal laws been broken in each case. The vice president was a consider a high level manger and the defendant tried state the case that the retaliatory discharge should only apply to low level managers. Under the federal guidelines everyone should be treated equally and fairly no matter their position in the company. The courts did not agree with the defendant because he was classifying the employees which is also

NLRB found a way to reprimand or even fire employees based on social media posts. These can occur when an employee decides to post inaccurate or negative information about the person in charge or boss. These comments are usually public, or the employer will use a fake account to view the employees social media page. In 2010 a California Contractors worksite terminated four workers for posting comments on social media in regards to hazardous working conditions. The blog was posted in 2010 showing four employees commenting and exchanging pictures. The employees were expressing their concerns with social media how it was to work for this company. Three weeks later the four employees were fired. Their work place conditions were horrible. The four employees were not properly trained with the hazardous material they worked with but they were told to state at the worksite they were trained and certified to work with them. NLRB determined the blog was protected because the employees stated concerns about safety, (Protected Concerted Activity). A complaint was issued for the case to appear in court. The second day of court the company settled with the employees.

Free speech is commonly assumed to be speech unrestricted by regulation, nevertheless legislators may also enact legislation to protect the implicit right to free speech. This is presented in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 19 section 1, stating ‘everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.’ This may be distinguished in this case as the employee has entered both into an employment contract with an implied social media agreement, and Commonwealth and State laws which are permitted to transcend this material. This implicit and explicit notion of free speech transcends into the spectrum of social media, an instrument pertaining a multitude of advantageous

An employer-employee relation is influenced by different factors that revolve the operational scope of the organization. In the contemporary working environment, employers are obliged to meet specific regulations, such as ensuring that the technical platform is safe and compliant with distinct specifications. The participative decision-making process has been prominence in the last two decades. It creates a platform where employees can air their grievances on different issues that affect them. This paper will focus on a lawsuit case study involving Electromation-Incorporated and National Labor Relations Board regarding various employees’ issues. Even though Electromation Inc. violated labor rules of failing to register their workers

The Burlington case was able to expand the scope of retaliation where it was found out that the anti-retaliation provision and Title VII’s substantive retaliation that include factors to do with gender discrimination (Gillet, Colombat, Michinov, Pronost, & Fouquereau, 2013). The case was therefore in a position to achieve the wider protection of the employees within the organizations within which they work as it makes it necessary for the protection of the employees from the different cases of discrimination within their respective courses. Employees are also protected from legal risks in cases where they might be subjected to unlawful retaliation an example being a situation where they are excluded from organizational meetings modifying the job duties of an employee, an employee being given a negative performance appraisal, or transferring an employee to shift with less desirable working hours.

Social media is a major part of today’s modern communication. With the dawn of the internet in the 90’s, social media began to evolve as fast as the internet. In 2004 Facebook was created and is the leading social media website in use today with over one billion daily users. Frequently firefighters find themselves being held accountable for their actions on social media. It could be a Facebook post, You Tube video, or something that seems innocent such as an email. Employers have a duty to protect their business or organization by monitoring their employees’ actions on social media sites. At what point is an employee’s first amendment rights protected versus the employers right to limit and discipline employees for actions? There are numerous

Employment and Labor law initially arose out of protection for employee as a result of the outcomes being one-sided towards employers. There are four categories dealing with employment law. The most famous of these is the Employment at Will which is also known as the Law of Wrongful discharge to many. Pay and Benefits is another category to be mindful of when thinking in terms of Labor Law, this category also includes safety and privacy issues for the employee. The third category deals with Union-management relationship, and last but not least is discrimination and harassment. Who has what responsibility in these sensitive issues is what we are going to discuss within this document.

Similarly, Colvin also surrendered his right to control of private information when he decided to participate on Facebook. However, Colvin situation differs from Swann and Leones because he did not post the incriminating picture, Swann and Leone implicated themselves. Additionally, Colvin’s misconduct did affect work performance; he lied to skip work and was caught. Although he did not provide the evidence himself, he should have been aware of the possibility arising due to Facebook (esp. after going to a Halloween party, probably the most photographed night, as far as pictures on Facebook, are concerned).

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information

Freedom of speech and freedom of press have been points of controversy for as long as they have been understood as fundamental human rights. In the past, the expression of these rights would almost always be public, but with the introduction of computers and the Internet, there are countless opportunities for anyone to voice his or her mind on a variety of websites and forums. With such an effective avenue to have your voice heard, it is not surprising that many people take advantage of the Internet to discuss issues they have with several topics ranging from government and politics to company policies. The right to speak out against the government is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, but the rules of speaking out against a private company are not so transparent. If an employee says something online that is to the detriment of the company the employee works for, either by defaming the company or breaking the company’s set of rules, should the employee’s right to free speech have higher precedence than the company’s right to uphold its rules? One case that perfectly portrays this debate is Google’s recent firing of its former employee, James Damore, due to a controversial memo that Damore posted.