It’s becoming ever more common for employers to monitor their employees’ accounts on social media. Disciplinaries can result from things posted that are not in line with company values. There’s a tension between employees’ use of social media platforms to share their personality and interests with the world and their employers’ concerns about perception.
Companies are concerned about offensive comments, political commentary, racial slurs, online harassment and disloyal comments about their employers that may be reflect badly on them.
So, what happens when an employee goes too far on social media? This article looks at a recent case where an employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed after the discovery of his racist remarks on Twitter.
Mr Weller was a train driver with an unblemished employment record who had collected several accolades at work. He was well-liked among his colleagues.
He had a Twitter account and an Instagram account. His social media posts were initially focussed on his weightlifting but later his political views.
One day, his employer received an anonymous letter drawing attention to some offensive Tweets published by Mr Weller. It included several screenshots such as a retweet commenting “I want my country back. I don’t want any more immigrants; I don’t want any more diversity or multi-culturalism”.
Also, there were comments about the Chinese community and Islamophobic messages. All this was at odds with the train company’s stated values. The whistleblower threatened to tell the local MP, the transport secretary, the police, and the Press.
The company summoned Mr Weller to a disciplinary investigation meeting about his social media activity. HR looked at the Twitter history and unearthed tweets such as “our NHS isn’t under-funded. You allow over 2 million immigrants into your country and give them access to the NHS, it’s now at full stretch” and offensive language towards Jeremy Corbin after he encouraged the public to hold up signs to urge people to take the knee for the Black Lives Matter movement.
Mr Weller admitted that his tweets were derogatory and offensive but denied they were racist. He said he wasn’t aware of the company’s social media and bullying policies. He refused further access to his Twitter account and deleted his profile before HR could make further inquiries.
He later claimed variously that hackers had made those tweets, that the re-tweets expressed other people’s opinions and ideologies, not his.
The employer didn’t believe his defences and dismissed him.
The tribunals eventually found that the employer failed to satisfy the requirement to conduct a fair and reasonable dismissal procedure because they couldn’t prove that they had given him a copy of the social media and bullying policies. The Judge also said that where an employee’s social media activity does not directly identify or criticise and employer and is conducted out of working hours, the employer might be expected to provide more clarity about the rules.
But the victory was empty. The tribunal accepted that Mr Weller’s behaviour could damage working relationships and that his conduct was blameworthy. As a result, his compensation was reduced by 100% to nil.
Conclusion
This case shows that online social media activity can lead to disciplinaries and dismissal. It also shows that employers need to ensure that their employees are aware of any relevant policies, that they cover the company’s stance on social media outside the workplace and that the employer must be able to show that the policy was given out.
Case study: Paul Weller v MTR Southwestern Trains Ltd
Image used under CC courtesy of Yuya Tamai