McCullough stated she was being disciplined because of her complaints regarding what she saw as the hostile work environment at Hyundai.
The court found that although McCullough may have acted in a vocal and confrontational manner as an employee, based upon the evidence presented, the specific rules she was accused of violating were not clearly worded. McCullough had met with her colleagues to discuss her feelings during lunch outings, not on company premises. She also addressed numerous complaint letters and emails to management, thus following through with the employee handbook's wording about the need to consult with a supervisor, regarding any difficulties. These complaints were ignored, by and large, which only lead to further escalation of McCullough's activities. Even McCullough's email policies were not specifically prohibited according to the handbook.
Although McCullough may not, based upon her description, seem like the model employee in terms of her social persona, it should also be noted that she worked at her place of employment for five years and received satisfactory reviews. Hyundai agreed to this fact, and stated that it was only the last two months of her employment, because of her actions regarding the check, that she was fired. McCullough was deemed to have been fired for a just cause because of her dishonesty but the court noted that Hyundai's employment manual was not worded in an acceptable fashion, in its view and the company commanded overly broad control over employee behavior (Hyundai, 2010, NLRB: 26). While McCullough may have made a poor case, based upon her personal behavior, the court implied that the company's written policies were in need of reformation.
To respond to the court and to better deal with employees like McCullough,...
Its employee handbook must not merely prohibit 'negative' behavior or 'gossip' but must set clear policies regarding email and workplace communications, such as when it is acceptable to forward an email and what matters can be discussed over work email accounts.
2. Excessive restriction upon outside communications between employees regarding work (with the exception of company secrets) is legally questionable and also can result in low morale, if the company appears to be spying on employees. Instead, the company must offer a venue to discuss complaints in a manner that is timely. McCullough's behavior became 'out of control' when her complaints were ignored, justified or unjustified. Complaints must be addressed in an explicit manner, not ignored, regardless of what the findings are regarding their veracity.
3. More effective channels of communication between management and employees must be established, to reduce the likelihood of a 'firebrand' like McCullough drawing such extensive workplace support, as she did until her unstable and volatile nature became clear. Workers should be given venues, such as performance reviews or regular meetings, in which they can give suggestions or raise issues in a friendly and open manner. The company's overall attitude was to stifle, dissent and to smother all discussion of any workplace criticism, even constructive criticism, which created a pressure cooker atmosphere in which workers were initially sympathetic to McCullough.
Reference
Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc. Vs. Sandra L. McCullough. (201). NLRB.
Retrieved February 27, 2011 at http://www.nlrb.gov/search/nlrbdocsearch/hostile%20work%20environment
