In the first ruling that specifically talked about social media policies and whether or not they were in violation of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Board has thrown out language that they felt chilled his Section 7 rights. The provision in question stated that, in electronic communication, one could be subject to discipline if their statements resulted in “damage(ing) the company, defame(ing) any individual, or damage(ing) any person’s reputation or violates the policies outlined in the Costco employment agreement.” An administrative judge found this policy permissible, but the Board itself stated that it was a violation of the bargaining rights and employee’s right to discuss wages, benefits and other terms of employment. In the Board’s opinion, a policy is invalid if an employee would reasonably construe to prohibit Section 7 activities, the rule was promulgated in response to union activity, or the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. The Board in a limited way supported the opinion of the Acting General Counsel, making it clear that only egregious conduct is prohibited by a valid policy, and it further noted that the policy in question failed to include an exception for protected communications. Therefore, unlike the broad opinion of the Acting General Counsel, it appears that the Board may very well allow a disclaimer and, of course, none of this has been subject to court scrutiny. Costco Wholesale Corporation and UFCW 371, Case No. 34-CA-012421 (2012).