Workplace policing of personal social media useage - Employment law

[Dillytante]

I was just wondering what the legalities are around the workplace monitoring what you say online and using it for disciplinary purposes. I read an article telling businesses to educate their staff about being professional online (in fact they used the phrase 'profersonal - professional and personal ), advising staff not to get involved in controversial discussions online. It made me wonder how much scope they have to 'control' our personal activities?

I'm asking as I want t write a blog post on the issue. I know what my feelings are about the matter but I am just wondering what the legalities are. Any information appreciated.

Once somebody posts something online, it enters the public domain. It's no different to emailing, giving interviews or being quoted on tv. To me, it's the same as wearing your work uniform whilst being drunk and disorderly. Whilst it may have occurred outside of work time, people can identify the employer.

My organisations code of conduct talks about bringing the organisation into disrepute. Things to be mindful of include, slagging off the organisation, discussing commercially sensitive info, cyber bullying etc.

I have had a case where a member staff got involved in a heated discussion on a social media site - nothing to do with work.
However, one of the other people choose to involve work by sending an anonymous letter to me her boss taking words out of context (I found and checked the conversation) and implying she had been derogatory about her work place.
There was no disciplinary to answer, however, I suggested to her that maybe in future it would be worth being a little more guarded in what she says on such a site.

We have a strict social media policy at work and can be disciplined for breaking it.

Do you think that is fair though? That your work can dictate what you can say outside of working hours?

I think it is fair enough if it's linked back to them.

It's why, TBH, it's good social media practice not to be friends on Facebook with your colleagues and not to include details of your employer in online profiles.

I do think its fair to be honest. If someone said something awful it could bring the organisation into disrepute, seem unprofessional, etc.

It doesn't even need to be about the organisation. You won't have to look hard to find tonnes of people sacked for poor behaviour outside the workplace. Doesn't even have to be on social media, but that's causing Abigail spike in numbers because before it was mostly "she said, he said" and now it is "here's a link."

What's more, and what today's youth are getting slammed with is that it is now quite standard to check someone's on line profile prior to even offering an interview.

A friend just wrote a book on rebranding yourself, and has lots of stuff on your digital profile. A lot is summed up in the advice "you may think it is funny to like a group called 'why do I have to press one for English. I'm in England!" but a lot of people and employers will find it racist."

Just today Corrie suspended an actor for his appalling rap videos from last year.

It just feels a bit insidious. And I'm sure it doesn't work the other way round. I bet you can't take action against your employer if they as a company do something bad & you feel it reflects badly on you.

If someone breaks the law that is one thing, but aside from that who decides what is appropriate behaviour?

Does anyone know where the law stands on this sort of thing though?

A colleague was essentially sacked for making comments about my workplace a few years ago. The colleague said something to the effect that employer needed to get a grip, (colleague was referring to their seasonal holiday policy re working hours). Colleague did apparently put a comment later that their comment was a bit OTT but someone had already relayed the comment to their team manager. I thought that employer were a bit harsh in their action but I also thought that my colleague was an idiot for posting the comment, my employer is heavily regulated & very much in the public eye & our rules are clear, we are not to post defamatory comments or name the company on websites without express guidance etc from the employer.

Can you tell how guarded I am on this?!

Law says they can sack you if it is egregious enough. It isnt unreasonable for them to sack you for things that negatively impugn their business or its reputation. And you can take action if you feel the company does something that reflects badly on you. You can quit, just like they can sack you. It is just that people tend to value their job too much to quit.

In a nutshell, you have to remember that everything you post on FB or Twitter or similar has the potential to identify you, and you can actually be held responsible for the things you say and do. A lot of people (starting with bullies and twitter trolls) are learning this the hard way.

I am not a lawyer but one of my close friends was sacked from her high level role for an international organisation making a throwaway comment on FB about their travel policy and having to spend some time with somebody who she'd rather not - this person wasn't on FB but somebody took a screenshot of it and it went from there.
She took them to an employment tribunal and their actions were ruled as unlawful and she ended up with a very large payout the employer was told that it could only be classed as misconduct and not gross misconduct.

Dragon - Sounds an awful experience for your friend. The line between misconduct and gross misconduct is a pretty fine one and depends on all the circumstances of what was said, who would see it, what it could do to the company concerned, etc.

Other people could find a tribunal ruling the opposite way in only very marginally different circumstances though. In fact, they could find a tribunal ruling the opposite way in the exact same circumstances since it's all about individual views on the panel and a bit unpredictable when it comes to those types of distinctions and findings of fact.

A lot of employers already have this covered, I also know of 3 people who have been sacked for putting crap on FB, they all knew the policies of their organisations. One was stupid enough to post a photo of herself at work with sensitive information on it. None of them got a penny. If people chose to slag of their employers on-line they should at least have the common sense to do it anonymously

So, I'm not talking about work related stuff necessarily. I'm talking about other things. So, I believe there are some organisations that don't permit their staff to be members of extreme right wing groups. But how can they justify that in law? Who gets to be the moral arbiter? Am I allowed to be a member of feminist groups and have heated feminist discussions online. And also, what if, like me you are posting under a pseudonym, with assumed anonymity, but someone tracks you down where do you stand then? Sure, if I am saying as CEO of AceCompany "AceCompany are a bunch of wankers" then yeah, I'd agree that warrants discipline. But what if I say things, not necessarily about my company, but things the company might not approve of, under another name. It just feels a bit Orwelian (well, I know that is the internet all over) that your workplace can dictate what you and say outside of work.

Another example, if I got blind drunk in my (hypothetical) work uniform, and was staggering about, throwing up everywhere and behaving, not illegally, but antisocially, then my work would have cause for complaint. But assuming I want to behave this this on my day off, then surely it is none of my employer's beeswax?

By the way, this is all hypothetical. I work in an organisation where my outside behaviour is very heavily controlled for various reasons, and I accept that as part of my job, so I do understand that it is more important for certain organisations than others. I am just trying to explore the more general issues. I am studying to be an Occupational Psychologist and writing a blog on work issues.

DH used to work for a quango, and is now retired. If he says anything in the public domain that is considered to have brought his former employer into disrepute he puts his pension at risk, and could lose it. Think they'd then have to refund 36 years of contributions, but he'd lose out rather heavily.

They can justify it in law because there is no guarantee that you keep your job despite whatever you do outside. So depending on your employer, yes, your heated feminist discussions could get you the sack. And few things are truly anonymous. Even on this thread we know you want to be an organisational psychologist and other things about you. You could be lying, true, but a glance over any thread will show plenty of people you could probably identify if you tried hard enough.

Realistically, jobs don't go looking for this stuff unless you're accessing these sites, etc at work. What happens is that despite anonymous stuff someone knows who you are, they become outraged at something or other and they send the transcripts to your boss. The public is involved and you and your company by extension are in disrepute. Remember that teacher getting sacked for being drunk in Cardiff on a Saturday night? Not a problem til she's on the front page of the Sun.

I don't exist under my own name online, except as a customer, as a director and a treasurer possibly (not to do with my work) and I suppose and on our work website.

Of course that doesn't mean my online postings aren't ever traceable to the official me...

My views are generally in line, or at least not contrary to my employer's public opinion on stuff and several people at my work are engaged in 'political' activities under their real names and this is not at odds with our employer's mission. There are a couple of incendiary subjects I am wary of commenting on online in a personal capacity because of the tiny risk of it getting back to my identity as an employee at my organisation.

I do think people should be allowed their personal (public) opinions and that not much in their private (networked) lives should really bring their company into disrepute.

Hold any opinions you like. But when you start putting them out there on line, be prepared for your boss or your family or your partner to find out someday. If not, keep it off line. As previously mentioned, the guy from Corrie got suspended and may get sacked for his appalling rap videos mentioning violence and drugs. Apparently they had been up for a year and no one knew/cared/figured out it was the guy. Odds are if they weren't posted, his bosses would never have found out. Everything the same but the uploading and the outcome is totally different. On line stupidity is the fastest way to get divorced or fired these days.

Well Dilly - do you think Chris Fountain has a case for unfair dismissal ?

I find a lot of people are more into their rights rather than responsibilities. They will be very quick to refer to Article 8 rights to privacy without giving any thought as to how damaging their actions could be to the reputation and aims of the organisation they work for.

My work have a very clear policy that membership of groups that promote intolerance or hatred is prohibited. Any discreditable conduct outside of work is also a potential discipline matter. It is irrelevant if it is online conduct or any other conduct.

What counts as discreditable conduct? I agree with membership of hate groups but I couldn't care less if a teacher gets drunk on a night out.

My husband's contract allows him complete freedom to say what he likes no matter how much it embarasses his employer. The purpose is to guarantee his independence.

You might not care if a teacher gets drunk on a night out, but if she winds up on the front page of the Sun being used as the poster child for broken Britain, many people will find her bringing herself/the school/the profession into disrepute. Or what if it is a school night? Or just a glass of wine at lunch time? Where is the line? Equally there are plenty of people who find racist/sexist/homophobic views perfectly acceptable (or these groups wouod have no membership) and more who find them unacceptable. The actual cases are very fact specific, but the terms are intentionally fuzzy so that if the pressure is there for whatever reason they can sack you on the spot. It also keeps people from perpetually being right up to the line without anything being able to be done. Or it gives managers a free hand to sack without notice - depending on which side of the table you happen to be on.

And you pretty much lose the right to claim privacy once you upload anything to the Internet. If you want something to stay private, then actually keeping it private in the first place is a good way to start!

There is now case law on this. Kass v Gillies and MacKay. Kass was dismissed for comments on Facebook. He brought an unfair dismissal case. The tribunal found in Kass's favour because the company had not followed proper procedure and because the judge felt that he had not been given a chance to explain himself. However, Kass's compensation was reduced by 20% as it was felt he had contributed to his sacking.
His comment did directly relate to the company.