The Information Revolution and Its Impact on the Employment Relationship: An Analysis of the Cyberspace Workplace

Gabel, Joan T.A.; Mansfield, Nancy R.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2002.tb00848.x

Cited by 30 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, enforcing the policy for union solicitation and not for other types of solicitations or for personal use of email systems is discrimination and a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (Gabel and Mansfield 2003). In a case involving Gallup, Inc., the company leniently allowed the use of internet and email for non-business reasons prior to a union organizing drive, but strictly enforced policies once learning of the organizing activities (King 2003).…”

Section: Company Bulletin Boardsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Email Organizations may prohibit use of company email systems for solicitation as part of a business-only-email policy (Gabel and Mansfield 2003). However, enforcing the policy for union solicitation and not for other types of solicitations or for personal use of email systems is discrimination and a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (Gabel and Mansfield 2003).…”

Section: Company Bulletin Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Rules of the Game: Union Solicitation in the Twenty-First Century Workplace

Findley

Vardaman

Moten

et al. 2008

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though union membership has declined steadily over the last 20 years, unions are dramatically increasing their efforts to organize the workplace. As a consequence, union solicitation drives are on the rise. While the case law in this area is relatively settled, many managers in nonunion environments are generally unfamiliar with the federal case governing union solicitations. This article examines the federal case law surrounding union solicitation and provides some practical guidelines for managerial conduct for dealing with union solicitation drives. It also discusses future directions in an interconnect world.

show abstract

Section: Company Bulletin Boardsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Company Bulletin Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rules of the Game: Union Solicitation in the Twenty-First Century Workplace

Findley

Vardaman

Moten

et al. 2008

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, employee use of email to send sexually offensive material could potentially expose the employer to liability for race or gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") or through tort claims holding the employer vicariously liable for an employee's tortious behavior (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress) towards another employee. Such liability is not without precedent, although the courts are as yet divided on the issue (Gabel and Mansfield 2003).…”

Section: Employer Motivation For Monitoring Employees' Email Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Workplace Privacy: Employee Relations and Legal Implications of Monitoring Employee E-mail Use

Friedman

Reed

2007

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tradeoff between employees' workplace privacy and employers' need to protect company assets, safeguard proprietary information, and avoid costly litigation has been receiving increased attention (Lee and Kleiner 2003;Mello 2003; National Workplace Institute 2004). This tradeoff often favors employers, as the legal system provides much leeway for employers to monitor employees' electronic communications in the workplace. However, employers need to consider the effect such monitoring has on their employees since employee and employer attitudes about monitoring often diverge. In this article, we explore workplace email monitoring from both employee relations and legal perspectives and discuss implications for employee morale.

show abstract

“…Workplace privacy violation claims may generally take one of three forms: intrusion upon solitude or seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, or publicly placing an individual in a false light (Gabel and Mansfield, 2003). Of the three, public disclosure of private facts is the likeliest cause of action that may arise when a post on the employer's OSN divulges private information.…”

Section: Vicarious Liability Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Causes of action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress require proof of intentional, outrageous behavior (Gabel and Mansfield, 2003;Sprague, 2007). In this situation, such a claim would require the employee claimant to show that the employer's conduct in either posting a comment directly or allowing another user's post to remain public on the employer's OSN was outrageous and that it caused the employee severe emotional distress.…”

Section: Vicarious Liability Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%