Navigating Employee Speech in a Global Workforce

Managing employee speech in the workplace is a complex challenge, particularly for HR professionals overseeing global operations, said Kelly Bunting, shareholder with global law firm Greenberg Traurig, at SHRM25 in San Diego.

“Understanding the differences in laws across countries is critical,” Bunting said. “What works in the U.S. might not work overseas, and HR professionals need to be aware of these nuances to create a respectful workplace.”  

How US Laws on Employee Speech Apply to Overseas Workers

Understanding how laws governing speech apply to managing employee speech, or even disciplining for it, is critical to compliance.  

U.S. laws such as the National Labor Relations Act and the First Amendment primarily protect government employees but have limited applicability in private workplaces.

“In the U.S., the First Amendment only applies to government employees, except in Connecticut, where private employers are also subject to free speech rights,” Bunting explained. However, these protections do not extend to employees working outside the country unless they are U.S. citizens employed by a U.S.-based organization, she noted. 

For example, laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act apply to U.S. citizens working abroad for U.S. companies. “But non-U.S. citizens working outside the United States are not covered under these laws,” Bunting clarified. 

There is also potential for conflict when U.S.-based HR policies clash with local legal protections.  

“You might have employees overseas who are protected by their country’s laws, even if their actions would be grounds for termination in the U.S.,” she said. 

This underscores the importance of understanding local regulations when managing global teams.  

 Toolkit: Managing Employee Conflict

Country-Specific Laws Protecting Employee Speech 

Country-specific laws can also shield international employees from disciplinary actions. Bunting provided an overview of key legal frameworks in regions such as the European Union (EU), U.K., and Canada, emphasizing their unique approaches to employee speech. 

“In Canada, for example, freedom of expression is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it’s not absolute,” Bunting noted, citing a case involving Canada Post, in which the court ruled that employees could not express themselves in ways that disrupted production or brought the employer into disrepute.  

The EU presents additional challenges. “The EU guarantees freedom of expression under Article 10 of its Charter of Fundamental Rights,” Bunting explained. 

However, employers must balance this right against the company’s interests. For instance, an employee dismissed in Spain for circulating an offensive cartoon was not reinstated because the court deemed the expression grossly insulting and unprofessional.  

In France, the laws are more employee-friendly. Bunting described a case in which a managing director openly criticized company policies but was reinstated because his “actions were deemed a ‘nonabusive exercise of freedom of speech.’” 

“In France, firing someone can be incredibly difficult, even for egregious behavior,” she said. 

These examples highlight the stark differences in legal protections across countries and the need for HR professionals to navigate these complexities carefully. 

Best Practices for Managing Protests and Politics in a Global Workforce 

Handling protests and politics carefully and respectfully is key to establishing a safe and legally conscious global workforce. This underscores the importance of creating globally consistent policies that respect local laws, all while maintaining company standards. These policies should outline prohibited activities, such as engaging in political activities during work hours or using company property for political purposes, Bunting said.

Defining company values with cultural sensitivity is another key strategy. HR professionals should address employee participation in protests or rallies with respect to whether it may damage the organization’s image.  

“If an employee attends a rally and gets caught on TV wearing a company shirt, it’s fair to discipline them if it brings the company into disrepute,” she explained. 

Training HR teams for cross-border challenges is equally important. “Equip your HR professionals with knowledge of international laws and cultural nuances,” Bunting urged.  

She cited Germany as an example, where hate speech is a criminal offense and employees can be disciplined for private social media posts if they harm their employer’s reputation. 

Proportionality is another critical component to consider when disciplining employees for problematic speech or political activity. Termination should not always be the first course of action; suspension or other disciplinary measures may be more appropriate.  

“Courts in many countries, especially in the EU, heavily consider whether the punishment fits the crime,” Bunting said. 

 Related Article: Authenticity or Oversharing? Tackling TMI in the Workplace