Tuesday 5th December 2023
PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Article 2
Bosses Risk Losing Face Over Facebook Snooping
Traditionally, our judiciary has been accused of being long in the tooth
and out of touch. It was well documented when a High Court judge asked a witness
a few years ago; ‘Who is this Gazza who you refer?’ Well imagine
how some of the profession will react when they face claims referring to ‘Facebook
conversation streams’ and ‘taggings’. Unluckily for those
who are not savvy with the modern form of social networking, such sites are
increasingly becoming the source of unfair dismissals and other claims. Employers
are monitoring employees for bad behaviour and banning the sites all together
at work.
It has been well documented that employers are visiting social networking
sites in order to vet suitable candidates for employment. Some parties see
this as an invasion of privacy. The Children's Charities' Coalition for Internet
Safety (CHIS) is taking it so seriously that it has just launched a campaign
to make it illegal for employers to make recruitment decisions based on what
they found on such sites. A more controversial use of this type of site by
employers however is the snooping on employees to find out if they have been
misbehaving in company time.
Due to a plethora of high profile cases many employees should know that their
boss could well have one eye on social networking websites just to make sure
that their employees are not bringing their company into disrepute. Take for
example Tom Beech who worked at Argos and who was sacked earlier this year
when managers saw a thread of conversation that he had set up after a particularly
bad day. The title of the thread had too many expletives to mention about
the employer. The dismissal was on the grounds of gross misconduct.
There is nothing to stop an employer monitoring such networking sites in order
to look for misconduct. However if an employer sees a form of conduct which
deserves in its mind the sanction of dismissal he or she should tread carefully.
An example of this was seen where a supermarket manager was sacked by ‘Somerfield’
on grounds of misconduct for posting a video clip on ‘YouTube’
showing an employee hitting another on the head with a plastic bag. The tribunal
awarded the employee over £2,000 compensation for unfair dismissal.
It said the footage could not have indicated a lack of concern for health
and safety as the supermarket claimed, and there was no evidence he had brought
the firm into disrepute.
Whether an employment tribunal sees such a dismissal as fair or unfair will
involve the same test seen in other conduct dismissals: whether the Tribunal
considers that the employer acted reasonably in treating the misconduct "as
a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee". There is no onus of
proof on employer or employee here and the matter has to be determined by
the Tribunal ‘in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of
the case’. The correct test to apply is to consider whether dismissal
fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in all the
circumstances. If the tribunal is left with a feeling that the employer is
delving into areas which are nothing to do with work then the surfing employee
is likely to be absolved of blame.
With the increasing number of subscribers to ‘Facebook’ and similar
sites, cases such as this are on the increase; ‘Royal Mail’ reported
that workers across their company are responsible for at least one hundred
groups on the social networking site. Questions are inevitably being asked
regarding where the boundaries lie for employees and employers alike.
This form of networking site has brought to the attention of employers the
familiar problem of excessive Internet use. A recent poll revealed that two
thirds of top London companies are now banning or restricting the use of internet
site ‘Facebook’ over fears that staff are wasting time on it.
A study found British users spend on average 191 minutes a month on ‘Facebook’
and dozens of people have admitted to “Facebook addiction”, where
they check the site compulsively.
It comes as no surprise that as a result, ‘British Gas’, ‘Lloyds
TSB’, ‘Bloomberg’, the ‘Metropolitan Police’
and ‘Credit Suisse’ are among the increasing number of firms actively
blocking their employees from accessing the site from their workstations
For a company employing say, more than 100 people, staff logging on for 30
minutes a day could cost tens of thousands of pounds in time lost every year.
A bigger threat to business is the leaking of company information. A recent
survey by email security firm ‘Proofpoint’ reveals 35% of large
European businesses employ staff to read employee emails, and 22% sacked employees
for email privacy violations.
Employees are becoming increasingly aware of their rights and the Human Rights
Act may well feature in any future litigation against snooping employers.
For now it seems however, that companies are on fairly safe ground to monitor,
as long as it is for bona fide business reasons and the employer informs the
workforce. It is important that companies set out clear policies and standards
in relation to use of the internet in the workplace so that everybody is protected,
whether it be against time-wasting or against controversial groups making
known to the other 3.2 million ‘Facebookers’ out there what your
company’s really like.
Employers should inform employees through an acceptable use policy, which
explains what action the company may take if it feels it is necessary. If
an individual is to be dismissed for using the Internet too much it is unlikely
that a tribunal will see the dismissal as fair if the employee has not been
warned first that such behaviour constitutes misconduct.
By Charles Price, barrister No5 Chambers
www.charlesprice.net
This article Copyright HRZone - Written by Charles Price
