Labour Bytes

THE RIGHT TO AN ANNUAL BONUS

Question: Does an employee have a right to an annual bonus?

Read more...

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT MANDATORY GRANTS DEADLINE 30 JUNE 2013

We wish to remind employers that the 30 June 2013 deadline for the submission of your Annual Training Report (ATR) and Workplace Skills Plan (WSP) to the relevant SETA’s is fast approaching.

Read more...

THE IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

A study showed that 80% of employees were dissatisfied with the performance appraisal system. Many managers also find it an extremely stressful process, so why not just do away with performance appraisals?

Read more...

NEW MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS IN WHOLESALE & RETAIL SECTOR

The minimum wage rates in the Wholesale and Retail are increased as from 1 February 2013. There are also a few other amendments to the Sectoral Determination that employers need to note.

Read more...

THE RIGHT TO ANNUAL INCREASES

Does an employee have a right to an annual increase?

Read more...

Latest Articles

MAY AN EMPLOYEE WITHDRAW A RESIGNATION?

May an employee withdraw a notice of termination and must the employer accept the withdrawal? And is there a distinction between desertion and resignation without proper notice?

[...]

CLAIMING FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CLARIFIED

It is a misconception that companies can only be reimbursed for training provided by external SETA-registered institutions. Companies can in fact also be reimbursed for structured internal, day to day training as well as Learnerships offered.

[...]

IMPACT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT

The Bill seeks to rectify anomalies and clarify uncertainties that have arisen out from the interpretation of the EEA in the past decade. We will also see the expansion of the powers of the Labour Inspectorate and the jurisdiction of the CCMA.

[...]

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES COMING TO BBBEE LEGISLATION

The DTI recently published a number of proposed amendments to the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act for comment, which if implemented will have a significant impact on organisations, making it more onerous to retain or improve their ratings.

[...]

EMPLOYEES WHO REFUSE TO SIGN A CONTRACT

Generally an employee may not be dismissed for refusing to sign a contract of employment. But are there circumstances where the employer can take stronger action short of dismissal?

[...]

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LRA AMENDMENT BILL

Finally we have clarity about the nature of the forthcoming amendments to the LRA and BCEA.

[...]

HOW SERIOUS IS THE TRADE UNION THREAT?

When a trade union approaches an employer with the news that its employees have joined the union, one can understand that some employers might experience a sense of betrayal. But is it as bad as it seems?

[...]

RETIREMENT AGE – THE EMPLOYER’S CHALLENGE

Our law does not provide for a national or general age at which employees have to, or may retire. Contracts of employment may of course contain an agreed retirement age, in which case the employer may ask the employee to leave employment once he or she has reached the agreed age. This is obviously subject [...]

[...]

TRASHING YOUR BOSS ON FACEBOOK

Social networks, such as Facebook, serve as a useful vehicle for sharing one’s personal views. It can also have unexpected and unfortunate ramifications. One example is when an employee makes use of a social network to air his views about his or her employer.

[...]

PROTECTING WITNESSES IN DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS

What does one do with whistleblowers who refuse to testify in a disciplinary hearing because they fear intimidation?

[...]


TRASHING YOUR BOSS ON FACEBOOK

Social networks, such as Facebook, serve as a useful vehicle for sharing one’s personal views. It can also have unexpected and unfortunate ramifications. One example is when an employee makes use of a social network to air his views about his or her employer.

It would seem that, for some reason or other, employees lose their inhibitions when there is a screen between them and the world out there. There have been several cases where employees have used a social network, such as Facebook and Twitter, to say nasty things about their employers. It is one thing to speak your heart out about your boss to a friend over a drink. As soon as you post it on a social network, though, two important dimensions are added: Firstly, your thoughts or words are recorded in text and cannot be retracted; secondly, you lose control over its distribution.

Who can blame an employer for wanting to take disciplinary action if an employee’s caustic comments about the employer are given publicity in this way? Several questions arise, though:
- What if it did not happen at work or during working hours?
- What about the employee’s right to privacy? Can the employer rely on evidence that was meant to be private?
- Does the employee’s position within the company make a difference?
- Does the remark necessarily destroy the employment relationship?

These considerations were addressed very lucidly in the CCMA-case of Sedick & another vs Krisray (Pty) Ltd. Two senior employees were dismissed for having exchanges via Facebook regarding the employer and members of management. They exchanged several snide remarks about the founder of the business and younger family members that were brought in to help manage the business. These remarks included “Trust me no one can put up with so much shit when the fing kids join the company!”; “From so-called ‘professionalism 2 dumb brats runnin a mickey mouse business”; “… today was hectic with Frankentein”; “What an idiot”; “a very ugly man with a dark soul”.

In this case the dismissal was not challenged on the basis that the exchanges had happened outside of working hours. However, it has become a firmly established principle that an employer may take action against employees for conduct outside working hours if such conduct has an adverse impact on the employment relationship.

As far as the issue of privacy is concerned, the commissioner noted that the internet is, for most part, public domain. This also applies to Facebook, to the extent that the employees had not restricted access to the relevant pages. As a consequence of their failure to make use of the privacy options, they had abandoned their right to privacy and the protections of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act of 2002 (“The Interception Act”).

Although no names were mentioned, the employees were intentionally communicating with subordinates within the company, as well as with ex-employees and other persons. According to the commissioner this meant that two of the senior employees in the organisation were publicly making derogatory and demeaning remarks about the director and management to persons who, on the balance of probability, were fully aware about whom these comments were being made. Whilst some of the postings were quite innocuous and not, in the commissioner’s opinion, all that damaging to the employment relationship, the greater number were extremely serious and, if not constituting insubordination, certainly constituted gross insolence.

After taking into account what had been written, where the comments had been posted, to whom they had been directed and by whom they had been said, the commissioner found that dismissal was a fair sanction. The arbitration award was concluded with the following terse observation: “If employees wish their opinions to remain private, they should refrain from posting them on the internet”.

Jan Truter of www.labourwise.co.za

www.labourwise.co.za is an on-line labour relations service aimed at assisting employers with the implementation of effective labour relations. They can be contacted via the website or info@labourwise.co.za.

 

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
*