A Facebook post firing may not comply with the law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against a company in Connecticut for firing an employee who posted negative comments about her boss. In the complaint, the NLRB said the employee was asked to prepare a report on a customer complaint against her, then turned down when she asked for representation in the matter from her union, Teamsters Local 443. Later, at home, she posted angrily about the situation.

American Medical Response did not adhere to fair labor practices when they fired medical technician Dawnmarie Souza last year, the Labor Board alleged.

The company said that Souza was not fired because of the Facebook comments but due to "multiple, serious complaints about her behavior,” according to CNN.

Souza made a range of disparaging comments about her supervisor. “Looks like I'm getting some time off. love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor,” she said in reference to the company’s terminology for a psychiatric patient, according to ABC News.

AMR said that she had violated the policy which said that no employees could post anything about the company unless they were granted permission.

The labor board is claiming she was fired illegally and should have been allowed union representation.

CNN reported that Jonathan Kreisberg, a regional director with the labor board said, "It was Souza's ... own page; she did this on her own time in her own home. This case is different because in this situation it happened online and the company's rules were unlawfully broad.”

AMR’s lawyer told ABC that she was fired over two complaints that the company had received from patients between October 2009 and November 2009.

"The chief reason she was terminated was her rude and unprofessional conduct,"John Barr, a lawyer representing the company told ABC. "The two complaints were the reason for the termination. If she had not engaged in this inappropriate conduct, it's very unlikely that she would have been terminated."

The labor board hearing on the case is set for Jan. 25. 

Source: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45735/