Employee facebook/twitter comments

fliptzer

Hi, I’m doing some research into employment law, specifically cases that involve an employee posting something about their employer on Facebook or Twitter and when is it appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings or terminate employment?

Obviously if an employee were to launch a tirade of abuse against their employer or boss that may be libellous but I’m stuck finding cases or articles where it’s not so clear.

A Hypothetically example would be if an employee of X ltd stuck on facebook that there is a rumour floating around that the company might be sold off or that another round of dismissals are due. While that in itself is not libellous could X ltd take action against the employee? Could they lawfully dismiss them or just give them a warning and slap on the wrist?

Any advice would be appricated.

rcarroll

Hmm just a thought - when we did journalism in college we were told that any rumours such as that a company is closing/doing poorly could get us in trouble, not sure if under the libel laws or what, for damage to the companies reputation/loss of business as a result of the statement.

It might not be libellous, but far as I remember it was still actionable through some law, might be worth checking out as it would be i'd say grounds for dismissal, if not worse.

seamus

It would depend on their employment contractm but most contracts will state that an employee will conduct themselves in a way that avoids damaging the reputation of the employer.

A given of any employment is that you will act in a way that serves the best interests of the company (notwithstanding your own best interests), so it would be reasonably fair for any company to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any employee who was publishing rumours which aversely affected the company's image or otherwise was likely to have a negative effect on the company.
Although you specify "rumour", it's also assumed that all information you hold about your employer or your employment is confidential unless you are specifically told otherwise by your employer.

In order to satisfy dismissal, the impact on the company would have to be severe or the information published would need to be quite sensitive. However, for publishing takeover or similar rumours, I would say that justifies at least going directly to a final written warning (i.e. one step from being fired), since these things could aversely affect consumer sentiment about the company and the attitude of shareholders.

Repeating a libel is a libel in itself, so that's another avenue the employer can take. It doesn't matter if the person qualifies it with, "I heard" or, "There's a rumour". Libel is libel and such a thing is actionable.

m@cc@

You might want to look at confidentiality clauses which employers put in contracts. These are usually only enforced if an employee leaves the company but there may be precedent for enforcing confidentiality whilst at the company.

fliptzer

Thanks for that, I accept the points on liable but I was researching employment law when a friend of mine told me he stuck up a stupid post on twitter about the company he worked for. They found it (along with a load of personal information) and he's really worried.

I'm not advising him but it got me thinking as there has been loads of media stories about silly mistakes on twitter etc. and what is the legal context? can't really find anything in the journals or case law.

Personally I don't think its a dismissal offence, just a warning but their handbook considers leaking information as serious misconduct and can be sacked IMMEDIATELY - no notice etc.

I did note that they also reserved the right NOT to hold a proper investigation or to skip parts of their grevience procedure which I personally think is a disgrace against due process, fair justice, etc.


PS If you were a share holder and employee in the company, could you argue that as a shareholder that publishing the information could be regarded as in the interest of the public and other shareholders, kind of like qualified privilege or Public interest privilege to a particular group or people (friends concerned about your well being) that was accidently made public - therefore no malice or intent involved?

Worth a shot

Tom Young

Sorry to be a pedant, the word is libel.

If you're researching employment law, have a look at www.citizensinformation.ie also the case of Browne v Ventelo (Sorry no citation available, but if you have Murdoch's Legal Dictionary look-up with word arsehole - The Citation is there and case is on Firstlaw). In effect its a case about vulgar abuse and codes of practice.

In relation to privacy in the workplace, see Copland v UK, it's an ECHR case, where the company/state policies were incomplete or non-existent in relation to the employee privacy rights.

Course in relation to libeling a company the Common Law origins are in the case of: South Hetton Coal Company v North Eastern News Association Limited [1894] 1 QB 133) that a trading corporation was entitled to pursue a remedy in a defamation action without being required to allege or prove that the publication complained of had caused it actual damage; it is sufficient for a trading corporation to show that it is likely to be damaged in the way of business.

Section 12 of the Defamation Act, 2009 provides:

The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement.

I should have said also that, the House of Lords in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359, [2006] UKHL 44 (11 October 2006) the House of Lords by a majority confirmed the traditional common law rule, albeit in the UK.

fliptzer

Cool - Thanks for the help!