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

  • Top 11 legal tips for selling a technology business

    Top 11 legal tips for selling a technology business

    These tips include asset sale or share sale, intellectual property ownership, legal and accounting due diligence, change of control issues, restraint of trade clauses, key personnel, and more.

    Read more …

  • s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia

    s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia

    This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.

    Read more …

  • Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Find out how the case of Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 highlights the potential risk of trademark infringements to businesses. Read more to discover the case background, takeaways, and tips to protect your business.

    Read more …

  • Electronic document execution by directors

    Electronic document execution by directors

    The Federal Government has issued a ruling allowing companies to sign documents electronically until 6 November 2020. Find out more about how this ruling affects your business.

    Read more …

  • Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.

    Read more …

  • Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?

    Read more …

  • $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.

    Read more …

  • Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question.  Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work.   The rights that apply to adaptions…

    Read more …

  • Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend