A recent test case decision handed down by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) has ruled that comments posted on social media can amount to workplace bullying even if neither the person who posted them or their target were at work at the time. The case highlights the importance of employers having a strong social media policy in place.
The Full Bench held that the posted comments constitute ‘bullying at work’ if the worker reads them later while at work.
Background facts
In Bowker et al v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World; Maritime Union of Australia, The Victorian Branch and Others three employees of DP World Melbourne Limited each made an application to the Commission under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a declaration that they had been bullied at work and for an order to stop the bullying.
The allegations of bullying were made against employees of DP World who were members of the MUA, and by MUA officials.
It was alleged these employees had posted various unreasonable and insulting allegations about the applicants on Facebook.
It was also alleged the applicants were threatened and excluded.
The respondents claimed that the alleged conduct was not made ‘at work’ within the meaning of s.789FD of the Act. This is relevant as the Commission only has jurisdiction to make orders to stop bullying if, among other things, the Commission is satisfied that ‘the worker has been bullied at work’ (s.789FF(1)(b)(i) of the Act).
Meaning of ‘at work’?
The Full Bench stated that the concept of being ‘at work’ encompasses both the performance of work (at any time or location) and when the worker is engaged in some other activity which is authorised or permitted by their employer. This might include being on a meal break or accessing social media while performing work.
Therefore a worker could be considered to be ‘at work’ at any time the worker performs work, regardless of his or her location or the time of day.
As a result, the Full Bench found that the worker need not be ‘at work’ at the time the comments were posted on Facebook. It would suffice if they accessed the comments later while ‘at work’.
Summary
The Full Bench ruling highlights the need for companies to have clear social media policies. These policies must make it clear that posting inappropriate material on social media sites about the company, managers or employees is unacceptable.
Further information
If you are an employer and need advice on issues arising from alleged workplace bullying, please contact us for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about employment law for employers
-
New anti-bullying legislation
The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 (Cth) was passed, introducing anti-bullying measures to protect workers. Employers must take steps to prevent bullying and face fines for contravening orders.
-
Superannuation changes – are you prepared?
The Australian Government has introduced significant changes to superannuation, with gradual increases in the compulsory superannuation rate set to impact both employers and employees. Starting in July 2013, employers will be required to contribute more to their employees’ superannuation funds, with the rate rising to 12% by 2019. This article breaks down the key changes,…
-
Employee Share Scheme (ESS) offering through options
Offering employees shares or options to acquire securities can be a great way to reward, retain, and entice them. Discover the different types of employee share schemes, their associated tax implications, the reporting and withholding obligations employers must satisfy.
-
Federal Court implies a new duty in employment contracts
The landmark Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32 ruling has changed the way employers must manage their employees. Find out how this Federal Court decision could affect your business and what you need to do to ensure compliance.
-
Employee or contractor – impact on intellectual property
This article explores the legal implications of determining whether an individual is an employee or contractor. Learn how a multi-factor test can help to identify the correct status, and understand the potential impact on intellectual property.
