Our Enforcement Activity

Una supervisora de una asociación dental fue despedida después de que se negara a divulgar los nombres de los empleados que habían firmado anónimamente una petición en protesta a la administración de alto nivel. La Junta determinó que el despido era ilegal porque ella se había negado legítimamente a violar la ley laboral federal al castigar la actividad concertada. En un acuerdo reconciliatorio, el supervisor y otro exempleado renunciaron a la reincorporación a cambio de $900,000 en salarios y beneficios perdidos.

Una enfermera práctica licenciada fue despedida después de que se quejó con su jefe en una empresa de investigación farmacéutica de que otros empleados estaban recibiendo un trato especial. La Junta determinó que el empleador infringió la Ley Nacional de Relaciones del Trabajo al despedir a la empleada para evitar que ella hablara sobre sus quejas de favoritismo con sus compañeros de trabajo.

Cinco empleados de Hispanics United of Buffalo, que brinda servicios sociales a clientes de bajos ingresos, fueron despedidos después de que publicaron comentarios en Facebook concernientes a condiciones de trabajo, incluyendo carga de trabajo y problemas de personal.

An employee was fired by a long-term acute care hospital in Chicago after filing a grievance regarding the treatment of employees who return from medical leave. The NLRB determined that the employee had engaged in protected concerted activities and called for a hearing before an administrative law judge. Prior to the hearing, the employer and employee reached a settlement agreement providing the employee with his full backpay.

Durante muchos meses, la conductora de un autobús escolar y algunos de sus colegas se quejaron con la gerencia sobre el comportamiento indisciplinado de los estudiantes en sus autobuses escolares. Al parecer, los estudiantes patearon, empujaron, golpearon y escupieron a los conductores. La conductora se reunió con un reportero de noticias de la televisión local y describió en detalle el comportamiento de los estudiantes, los peligros que representaba para los conductores y la falta de respuesta de la gerencia a las quejas de los conductores sobre el problema. Después de que la entrevista salió al aire, la empresa despidió a la conductora del autobús.

Después de un incidente relacionado con el trabajo, una empleada criticó a su supervisor en una publicación en Facebook, lo que provocó que otros empleados respondieran a la publicación. La empleada fue suspendida al día siguiente y posteriormente despedida. La NLRB emitió una demanda alegando que la empleada fue despedida ilícitamente por participar en una actividad concertada protegida cuando ella publicó en Facebook. Antes de una audiencia, el caso se resolvió conciliatoriamente.

A construction contractor fired five employees after several of them appeared in a YouTube video complaining of hazardous working conditions. Following an investigation, the NLRB regional office issued complaint. As a hearing opened, the case settled, with the workers receiving full backpay and declining reinstatement.

A long-time employee at a vegetable packing plant was fired after raising safety concerns on behalf of other workers with company management and a government agency. The NLRB issued a complaint alleging the firing was unlawful because the employee’s activity was protected. Prior to a scheduled hearing, the case settled and the employee was reinstated with full backpay for time off work.

Un grupo de trabajadores avícolas salieron del trabajo para protestar por el nuevo requisito de pagar 50 centavos por par de guantes de látex que usaron en la línea. Mientras los trabajadores se reunían en una iglesia cercana, dos mujeres contaron su historia a un periódico local y fueron citadas por su nombre. Pronto fueron despedidas. El caso finalmente llegó a la Junta, que determinó que los despidos eran ilícitos porque castigaban una actividad concertada la cual era protegida.

Several dozen welders performing contract work under temporary visas signed a petition protesting their poor living conditions and irregular hours. The worker who delivered the petition to the employer was threatened with deportation and then fired that day. The NLRB issued complaint and scheduled a trial, but before it began, the parties settled with the worker receiving $13,000 in backpay.

The employer maintained a overly broad social media policy unlawfully restricting employees' discussions about terms and conditions of employment and required that employees sign a copy of the policy or be fired.  One worker was discharged after raising concerns with co-workers about this policy and for refusing to sign it.  After the regional NLRB office found that the employer’s social media policy unduly restricted employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act and that the employer unlawfully discharged the employee who had raised concerns with her co-workers and refused to sign the policy, the employer settled the case by reinstating the discharged employee with full backpay, rescinding the unlawful portions of their social media policy, and posting a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

The staff at an urgent care center sent an anonymous letter to the owner/doctor, asking him to reconsider a plan to immediately cut wages by 10% and suggesting alternate ways to save money. Within a month, two employees who wrote and edited the letter were fired. The Board found the employees’ activity was protected and ordered full backpay and offers of reinstatement.

Employees at an Oakland based internet software company were discharged through a layoff soon after they raised group concerns about changes to their working conditions. The NLRB issued a complaint alleging that the discharges were unlawful because the employees’ collective activities were protected.

In April 2012, a group of employees walked off the production line to protest the speed of the line and other working conditions, and thereafter met with the plant manager. That evening, the employees again met with the plant manager, to discuss their compensation and other matters. One month later, when the Employer learned that another work stoppage was planned, three employees were separately called into the office and dismissed.

Women working the overnight shift at a plastics manufacturing plant discussed concerns about a new supervisor, who they later learned was a registered sex offender. They asked for a group meeting with Human Relations officials, but were instead called into individual meetings and disciplined. One employee was fired; others were demoted. Following an NLRB investigation, the employer settled the case by agreeing to restore all employees to their former positions with full backpay. 

A group of employees at a non-profit animal sanctuary, had conversations complaining about several executives of the organization, including how the founder was verbally abusive and yelled at employees. Two days later, two of the employees were fired. During conversations with the employees, the founder and the president made statements that gave them the impression that their private conversations complaining about the founder’s treatment of employees had been under surveillance.

When a hotel housekeeping service announced a $2-per-hour wage cut, employees protested in letters to managers, written with the help of a community organization. Workers who led the effort and signed the letters were later fired. After the NLRB issued complaint, both employees received full backpay and offers of reinstatement.

A customer service representative for a diaper supply company was fired after discussing her wages with another employee, based on a policy in the company handbook that the NLRB later found to be unlawful. After the NLRB issued a complaint, the case settled with the employee receiving backpay and an offer of reinstatement. The employer also changed its handbook to inform employees that they do have the right to discuss their wages with each other.

Supervisors at a cheese processing facility held a meeting of all the company’s employees, informing them that they would be receiving merit- based wage increases. The supervisors told the employees that they were prohibited from discussing the extent of their pay increases, stating that anyone found to have discussed their raise with co-workers would be fired.