Social media - when can you dismiss a public sector employee for inappropriate comments?

The Fair Work Commission has recently handed down a decision that sheds light on the circumstances in which a public sector employer can (and cannot) dismiss an employee for his or her comments on social media  (Starr v Department of Human Services [2016] FWC 1460 (29 March 2016)).

While the decision is subject to appeal, the result at first instance shows that the path to dismissing an employee on the grounds of inappropriate social media comments is not always smooth.

The Facts

The Commonwealth Department of Human Services (DHS) terminated the employment of a Centrelink officer when it found that he had made a number of negative comments relating to his work on social media.

Over a three year period, the employee had posted numerous adverse comments about Centrelink and its customers in online forums such as 'Whirlpool' and 'Sportal'.

Following a misconduct investigation,  DHS found that the employee's negative and inappropriate comments on social media had breached s 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), including by breaching the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct and Centrelink's Social Media Policy, and had brought Centrelink's reputation into disrepute.

Offensive online posts a valid reason for dismissal

The Commission found that the following posts by the employee gave rise to a valid reason for his dismissal:

• Posts in which the employee referred to DHS's clients as "spastics and junkies", "whinging junkies" and "junkies";
• Posts in which the employee commented that a large proportion of clients seeking exemption from the work search requirements of Newstart did not have genuine reasons for doing so; and
• Posts in which the employee stated that DHS's processing times were "utterly disgraceful", that he was "embarrassed to work there" and "there isn't a damn thing those of us in the offices can do about it".

However, the Commission rejected DHS's submission that the employee's criticism of the Government itself constituted a valid reason for his dismissal. The Commission held that the relevant sections of the Public Service Act were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to entirely displace public servants' common law rights to freedom of expression and political communication.

Dismissal unfair despite valid reason

Despite the Commission agreeing that there was a valid reason for the dismissal, it ultimately found that the dismissal was harsh in the circumstances.  The Commission arrived at this finding because of:

• The lack of evidence to substantiate actual damage to the reputation of DHS by the employee's posts;
• the 'situational' and 'impulsive' nature of the employee's posts, which were found to have been 'made out of frustration and not maliciously' rather than in a deliberate attempt to 'publically damage the reputation of [DHS]';
• the employee's genuine remorse and regret for his conduct; and
• the employee's 20 years of service and limited alternative job prospects.

Having found the dismissal to be unfair, the Commission ordered that the employee be reinstated.
No orders were made in relation to lost remuneration as the Commission considered that any loss of income constituted a 'suitable sanction' for the employee's improper conduct.

We understand that the decision is now subject to appeal by the DHS.

Key lessons for public sector employers

• The mere fact that a public servant has made inappropriate or political comments on social media may not be sufficient to warrant dismissal.
• Training employees on a social media policy may bolster an employer's defence to an unfair dismissal claim.
• In weighing up whether a public employee has breached his or her duties, it will be important to analyse whether the impugned conduct has actually compromised the employee's work or damaged the employer's interests or reputation.  Just because an online post is embarrassing or offensive, it may not have sufficient impact to warrant dismissal.
• In all cases, employers must weigh up the nature and gravity of the conduct against factors such as the length and quality of the employee's service, the frequency and extent of any offensive comments and the circumstances in which the comments were made.

We’ll provide an update when the Full Bench hands down its decision.

For more information please contact:

David Catanese
Managing Principal Solicitor
9032 3040

Nicole Lorenz
Solicitor
9032 3051

Employer runs 'fowl' of procedural fairness

On 7 May 2015, the VGSO hosted its seminar. 'An essential ingredient - Procedural fairness in workplace issues: a panel discussion', to a full house of Victorian government agency staff.  Our panel members, Jacqueline Parker, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor, Joanne Kummrow, Special Counsel, Alice Felman, Principal Solicitor, Andrea Lester, Investigator and Jim McKenna, Barrister, provided insights into the key elements of procedural fairness in the workplace and the importance of conducting thorough and unbiased investigations.

That same week, the Fair Work Commission delivered its decision in Heidi Cannon v Poultry Harvesting Pty Ltd, a sobering example of the consequences of failing to afford procedural fairness.

The untimely demise of a number of chickens

Ms Cannon was dismissed from her employment with Poultry Harvesting for allegedly being intoxicated at work, and sleeping in a vehicle during her shift.  Her neglect of duties led to the 'smothering' of a number of chickens.

After her supervisor (Mr Germinian) received a call from a co-worker reporting that Ms Cannon was 'useless', and apparently intoxicated at work, he attended the site.  Upon being asked several times, Ms Cannon denied that she was intoxicated.  She was dismissed after her supervisor smelt alcohol on her breath.

Later that afternoon, Mr Germinian refused to reconsider Ms Cannon's dismissal on the basis that Ms Cannon had lied to him about her intoxication.  Mr Germinian relied on information from another employee that Ms Cannon's partner had advised him that Ms Cannon had been too intoxicated to drive to work.

Although Ms Cannon admitted to not driving to work because she was concerned she might be over 0.05 if breathalysed, she did not consider herself to be intoxicated.

Ms Cannon made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy.

No valid reason to dismiss

The FWC found that there was no valid reason for Ms Cannon's dismissal.  Its reasons included:

• Failure to investigate (no steps taken by employer to objectively assess Ms Cannon's condition and reliance on hearsay information about Ms Cannon's fitness to drive) 
• Failure to apply policies (employer did not follow requirements of its own policies which required employees to be stood down from work until they could work in a safe manner, to be issued with a written warning and to be advised of the availability of counselling)  
• Evidence did not support reason for dismissal (despite concerns that Ms Cannon's intoxication could cause a health and safety risk, Ms Cannon was permitted to work until the end of her shift).

No procedural fairness

The FWC also found that Ms Cannon had been denied procedural fairness as a result of a failure to provide her with an opportunity to respond to allegations or to warn her that she was not permitted to drink any amount of alcohol prior to her shift.  The FWC took into account the following:

• the lack of engagement with Ms Cannon about her views regarding the allegations that she was intoxicated or that she had lied about her alleged intoxication; and
• the lack of an opportunity for Ms Cannon to respond to the allegation by Mr Germinian that Ms Cannon had brought into the premises a can of alcoholic beverage that Mr Germinian found in the shed.  

The Cannon case highlights many of the key themes discussed at the VGSO seminar, including:

• ensuring employees are aware of the standards of behaviour to which they are being held to account, such as their obligations under relevant instruments (eg the Code of Conduct, the Public Administration Act 2004 or the VPS Determination); 
• following the requirements set out in policies or instruments with respect to the management of misconduct or performance processes;
• informing the employee, at the commencement of the process, of the potential outcomes and consequences for their employment; and
• providing a genuine opportunity for the employee to respond or to offer mitigating circumstances with respect to the allegations, the findings and the proposed outcome.

For further advice on your agency's obligations of procedural fairness in the workplace, please contact:

Romina Woll
Senior Solicitor
t  9032 3026
romina.woll@vgso.vic.gov.au

Vicki Moulatsiotis
Principal Solicitor
t  9032 3012
vicki.moulatsiotis@vgso.vic.gov.au