employment law

Social media policies are a necessity for large companies – Fair Work Australia

HomePrivate: BlogCase studiesSocial media policies are a necessity for large companies – Fair Work Australia

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

The case of Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Limited [2011] FWA 8444 demonstrates the need for organisations to have a social media policy to clarify boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable conduct online.

Background

Mr Stutsel (Applicant) had been employed by Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Company) as a truck driver for over twenty-two (22) years and had an excellent work history.  His employment was terminated for serious misconduct because of a number of disparaging comments on his Facebook page about two (2) particular managers.  The Company argued that the dismissal was justified because of the following comments on Stutsel’s unrestricted Facebook page:

(a) a number of statements about one (1) of his managers that amounted to racially derogatory remarks;
(b) statements about one (1) of his managers that amounted to sexual discrimination and harassment; and
(c) two (2) extremely derogatory statements about two (2) separate managers.

As a result his dismissal, he applied to Fair Work Australia for unfair dismissal pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).

Submissions by the Applicant

During the arbitration proceedings, the Applicant gave sworn evidence and submitted a witness statement which stated, among other things, that:

  • his wife and his daughter had set up his Facebook account;
  • he thought that Facebook was a place where he could privately interact with a group of people who he had accepted as Facebook ‘friends’;
  • he was told by his wife and his daughter that they set up his account with full privacy restrictions and that to his knowledge, nothing he said or did could be seen by anyone but the people he had invited to be his Facebook ‘friends’;
  • he was not sure how one (1) of his managers was able to access his Facebook account as he did not, nor did his wife or his daughter change his privacy settings; and
  • he was not aware of any Company policy regarding Facebook, other than a general direction that it should not be accessed during work time (as opposed to breaks).

Submissions by the Company

The submissions made on behalf of the Company argued that the derogatory comments breached:

(a) the implied terms of the Applicant’s contract of employment, which provided that he:

  • act with good faith and fidelity;
  • had breached the required obligation of trust and confidence;
  • promote his employer’s business interests; and
  • not take any action that would damage his employer;

(b) the Company’s Workplace Diversity policy; and

(c) clause 6.1 of the Equal Opportunity and Diversity statement contained in the Linfox Red Book Induction, which was provided at the Company’s induction program, which the Applicant had participated in.

Decision

Commissioner Roberts concluded and found that:

  • at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal, the Company did not have any policy relating to the use of social media by its employees;
  • even by the time of the hearing, it still did not have such a policy;
  • the Company relied on its induction training and relevant handbook to ground its action against the Applicant; and
  • in the current electronic age, this was not sufficient, as many large companies have published detailed social media policies and have taken pains to acquaint their employees with those policies.  Whereas, the Company did not.

Consequently, it was held that:

  • there was no valid reason for the termination, as the Applicant was not guilty of serious misconduct; and
  • the termination of the Applicant’s employment by the Company was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Therefore the Company was ordered to:

  • reinstate the Applicant to his former position, with full continuity of employment; and
  • compensate the Applicant.

This case should be a reminder to all employers that social media policies should not be seen as luxuries but as necessities.  Comprehensive social media policies not only set guidelines for the online conduct of employees during and after work hours but they may protect an employer against unfair dismissal claims.

Further information

Dundas Lawyers has advised various organisations on issues associated with social media law.  To ascertain how Dundas Lawyers can assist you in implementing a social media policy, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about technology law

  • Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.

    Read more …

  • Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    The ruling of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 has opened the door for artificial intelligence-created inventions to be eligible for patent protection. Learn more about the implications of this groundbreaking decision.

    Read more …

  • The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.

    Read more …

  • Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.

    Read more …

  • My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    This article examines how professional service businesses can protect their investment in employees from clients poaching them. It looks at potential clauses such as client agreements, non-solicitation of employees, restraints of trade, confidential information, copyright and more.

    Read more …

  • Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.

    Read more …

  • Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

    Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

    Learn how to structure IRUs for tax compliance and ensure your cable system capacity services are secure. Discover the key elements you need to include in your agreement to guarantee exclusive access and economic ownership rights.

    Read more …

  • Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

    Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

    Online gaming operators in Australia must abide by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth). Learn more about the rules and regulations, and the consequences when they are not followed.

    Read more …

  • Standard form IT procurement contracts – legal issues

    Standard form IT procurement contracts – legal issues

    Do you know what to look for in an IT procurement agreement? Learn more about the Queensland government QITC framework and key areas to consider when drafting or negotiating an agreement to protect your company’s commercial value.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend