Social media has made a big shift from the early days, when Facebook simply provided a route for people to interact with people they already knew. Now, more and more businesses are using the different platforms to raise their profile and to interact with customers.
Whether employer or employee, it’s time to size up attitudes and approaches. Otherwise, employers stand to lose valuable intellectual property and employees need to take care of the merging between their private and working life.
Let’s take a look at some of the major issues that are facing social media users on both side of the work/home divide.
Can employers use Facebook to obtain information about employees?
Stories are emerging from America about employers asking job applicants to log onto Facebook during an interview, or asking existing employees to name their boss or line manager as a Facebook friend, so that the prospective employer can get an insight into the private life of the job applicant.
But this kind of action is dangerous because using the information available on a Facebook page may leave the employer open to an accusation of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion, disability or age.
Employers taking this approach are arguing that they need to check whether employees are using Facebook to criticise their employer, or to assess the character of a prospective employee. It is also being used to monitor and investigate any accusations of employees using social media to bully or harass colleagues, as the employer has to investigate the matter if asked to do so.
Conclusion: What happens in America is likely to be echoed over here, so it’s worth employers making a policy decision now about their approach to employees’ private social media accounts, to make sure that any request for access is “necessary and proportionate”. And for employees, don’t hand over access to your private social media accounts without getting a written explanation of why it’s being requested, and how it will be used.
Can employers control what employees say on social media?
Whether it is a rude joke on their Facebook page or a grumble about someone at work, the extent to which it may be judged by the employer depends on a number of factors.
Firstly, the type of business and whether the business is referred to. An employee of a waste disposal company probably has more freedom to tweet than an employee of a large firm ofLondonsolicitors.
Secondly, the effect, or potential effect on the employer’s business.
Thirdly, the readership. If the tweet only reaches eight people, the potential damage to the employer business is less than if it reaches eight million people.
And finally, the seniority of the employee. Pictures of a drunken evening by employees of a well-known company will cause more harm to the employer if they are posted by the managing director than if they are posted by the office cleaner.
For many people, it doesn’t seem possible that what they write to friends on their Facebook wall, or tweet to their followers, outside work could get them into trouble with their employer, but there are grounds for employers taking disciplinary action over ‘inappropriate’ use of social media.
A recent example is the case of Swansea University student Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, who was sentenced to 56 days in jail after admitting inciting racial hatred over remarks made on Twitter about the Bolton Wanderers player Fabrice Muamba, who collapsed during a cup tie against Tottenham Hotspur. Not only did the remarks land him in jail, Swansea University has suspended him pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
But deciding whether behaviour is appropriate or not, can be tricky. John Flexman, a former employee of the British gas exploration company, BG Group, has just brought a constructive dismissal claim before a UK Employment Tribunal following a dispute with his employer over his use of LinkedIn. He was accused of “inappropriate use of social media” and found to be in breach of a company policy on conflicts of interest which prevents employees from ticking a ‘career opportunities’ box on the site. This is the first notable constructive dismissal claim involving a LinkedIn account and the outcome will be being watched carefully.
Criticising the company:
Employer should be able to take it for granted that employees will act in the best interests of the company and will not undermine it - just as an employee should be able to take it for granted that their employer will not try to undermine and diminish their abilities.
Public criticism of an employer on social media strikes at the root of this relationship, but even so, an employer needs to respond to criticism reasonably.
It’s unlikely to be a sacking matter if a teenage employee tweets that her job is boring as the complaint is about the job, not the employer. And as many teenagers would describe their jobs as boring, the complaint is unlikely to reflect badly on the employer. A better response by the employer might be to demonstrate to the employee how important her job is, how others rely on her doing it well and to show the level of responsibility it carries.
On the other hand, a recent incident where airline cabin staff wrote disparaging comments about passengers and the airline’s safety procedures was judged to be highly damaging to the employer and the guilty staff were dismissed.
Bullying and harassment :
Like the school classroom, the workplace is a place where friendships and enmities are formed. Nowadays, these personal dramas may be played out in public on social media sites, and an employer has a duty of care to protect employees from inappropriate or offensive conduct, bullying or harassment from other employees. It means that employers have to show they will not tolerate employees posting remarks of these kinds.
Careless use of social media could be a betrayal of confidential information. For example if an employee posts personal information like a date of birth that is also used for log-ins or passwords there could be a breach of security.
Or, in a business where client confidentiality is fundamental, like a solicitor’s firm or doctor’s surgery, a tweet by an employee that discloses the name of a client is likely to lead to instant dismissal.
This aspect also takes us back to the employment tribunal with Mr Flaxman, as his employer BG Group first raised the alarm in response to information he posted relating to the company’s human resources, which they say was confidential. They also disputed suggestions in Mr Flexman’s CV that he had brought about a reduction in staff attrition.
Conclusions: Employers need to be very clear about what’s acceptable practice for employees when they are online. And if it’s you that’s going online, don’t write anything that you wouldn’t say out loud to a stranger. It’s too easy to forget that online chats and comments are not taking place over the phone or the kitchen table.
So what next?
For employers, the best strategy is an overall social media policy that’s regularly updated, rather than a piecemeal approach which may be hard to enforce. But it needs to be a set of rules that is sensible and reasonable, as oppressive rules are unlikely to be enforceable and will only serve to alienate staff.
What is important is to set out the policy clearly so that all employees know what the boundaries are and what is unacceptable. For example, unless it is clearly spelt out that employees must not, in any circumstances, post offensive remarks about another employee on social media sites, they may feel that they can post what they like outside office hours and that what they do in their own home is no concern of the boss.
Any policy also needs to be aligned with employment contracts, which should spell out that passwords and other login details are the property of the employer; and should also tackle attitudes to business network contacts made by virtue of the employee’s job with the employer.
It all needs to be backed up with practical attitudes to enforcement. So steps should be taken to ensure that the company has control over all the social media log-ins and passwords to ensure that a former employee will have no access after they have left – which is particularly important if there is any ill-feeling surrounding the employee’s departure.
If you require any further information or advice in relation to this matter please do not hesitate to contact Alexandra Dean on firstname.lastname@example.org or 01245 493939
This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.