|
An employment tribunal has held that a pub manager was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after she made inappropriate comments on Facebook about two customers, who had verbally abused and threatened her. Her employer was entitled to take the view that the conversation on Facebook, which took place while she was at work, did not reflect her upset or anger at the customers, but seemed more like a joke between friends. It did not matter that she thought that her privacy settings meant that only close friends could see her entries; in fact a wider audience was able to view her Facebook page, including relatives of the customers in question. As a result, the manager was found to be in breach of the employer's e-mail and internet policy, which specifically referred to employees' use of media such as Facebook while at work. The pub manager’s contract of employment provided that the pub could immediately terminate her contract if it found her guilty of gross misconduct. The contract also referred to the employee handbook, which contained its disciplinary and dismissal procedure. It also contained examples of gross misconduct, including acts committed outside work which either had an adverse bearing on the employee's suitability for the job, amounted to a serious breach of trust, affected employee or customer relations or brought the pub into disrepute. The handbook also provided that a failure to comply with the e-mail, internet and intranet policy would amount to gross misconduct. The policy referred to blogging and reserved the pub right to take disciplinary action should the contents of any blog, including pages on sites such as MySpace or Facebook "be found to lower the reputation of the organisation, staff or customers and/or contravene the company's equal opportunity policy". More in detail. In May 2010, the pub manager and another employee were subjected to a torrent of verbal abuse and physical threats from two customers. As a result, the pub manager asked the customers to leave. After a while, someone believed to be the customers' daughter, made several abusive phonecalls to the pub manager. A little later, while the pub manager was still on duty, she entered into conversations on her Facebook account about the earlier incident and made several negative comments about the customers. Some of the comments suggested that she and her friends had found the incident funny. The pub manager tried to contact her line manager, but was unable to as they were on holiday. She did not use the "hotline" facility provided by the pub whereby employees are able to discuss problems with managers on a 24 hour basis. The pub was contacted by the customers' daughter who complained that offensive comments about her mother had been made "very public". During an investigatory meeting, the manager admitted that she had made some comments on Facebook while she was supposed to be working, and understood that her actions "brought her into conflict" with the policy. She explained that she had been angry and upset but understood that Facebook was the wrong place to vent her anger and frustration. She explained that she thought that her privacy settings meant that only work and school friends could see her communications on Facebook. Her mitigation for her actions was that she had been subjected to several abusive phonecalls. The manager’s internal appeal was unsuccessful and she brought a claim for unfair dismissal.The tribunal dismissed her claim. The tribunal acknowledged that the customers' behaviour was abusive and shocking. However, the Facebook entries took place over a lengthy period of time, after the situation had calmed down and she was working as normal. The manager knew that she could use a "hotline" to seek the advice of an experienced manager or, if she felt distressed, to ask permission to leave work early. This case is another important reminder both for employers and employees in their use of social media. For employers, this case highlights the importance and usefulness of having a properly drafted policy regarding the use of social media. The lesson for employees is not to use Facebook or similar media as a way of venting frustration about work. In this way, this case highlights the differences between the generations. Social media, such as Facebook or blogging generally, is now widely used as a means of communication whereas in certain cases a more formal route to discuss the problems may have been more appropriate.The fact that Facebook was used while on duty was also relevant in this case. However, that is not to say that had she participated in a similar conversation out of work, the incident would have been less serious. This decision echoes the findings in another case where an employee was found to be fairly dismissed for sending an offensive e-mail from his home computer to his colleague's home computer although the arguments relied on that case were that the action had brought the employer into disrepute and was in breach of its equal opportunities policy. For more information on this subject take a look at our extensive social media information package. All articles are for general purposes and guidance only and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Copyright 2010 Anassutzi & Co Limited. All rights reserved. Information may be shared or reproduced only if accompanied by the author’s name and bio.
|
Articles 
