The Verge:

CNBC reports that the National Labor Relations Board alleged, in a complaint filed Friday, that X violated labor law when it fired an employee who criticized the company. Elon Musk bought the company, then known as Twitter, in October and threatened to fire workers who didn’t return to in-person office work. After Yao Yue encouraged others in the company’s Slack to let the company fire them instead of quitting, she was fired for breaking an unspecified company policy.

CNBC writes that in the complaint, the NLRB accuses X of keeping workers at the company from exercising their legal labor rights. Yue alleges the company laid her off “in retaliation for her attempt to organize her co-workers not to resign, so they would have better legal footing” on which to challenge the company later.

In July, ex-employees of X filed a new lawsuit over the company’s alleged refusal to pay for arbitration that a judge had determined in January they were contractually obligated to use. The judge’s decision halted their class action lawsuit that alleged that X had not given the employees proper notice under both federal and California state laws. The company had begun laying off much of its workforce in November last year.

Source link

MuskWire TLDR:

According to a report by CNBC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a complaint alleging that X (formerly known as Twitter) violated labor law by firing an employee who criticized the company. The complaint states that after Elon Musk purchased the company in October, he threatened to fire workers who did not return to in-person office work. Yao Yue, an employee at X, encouraged others in the company’s Slack to let the company fire them instead of quitting. However, she was subsequently fired for breaking an unspecified company policy.

The NLRB accuses X in the complaint of preventing workers from exercising their legal labor rights. Yue claims that she was laid off in retaliation for her attempt to organize her co-workers not to resign, so they would have better legal grounds to challenge the company later.

In a separate event, ex-employees of X filed a lawsuit in July, alleging that the company refused to pay for arbitration that a judge had determined they were contractually obligated to use. The judge’s decision halted their class action lawsuit, which claimed that X had not provided proper notice to employees under federal and California state laws. The company had begun laying off a significant portion of its workforce in November of the previous year.