An Alberta provincial government employee who posted derogatory descriptions and criticisms of her co-workers and supervisors on several online blogs that she created was justifiably dismissed because this conduct irreparably undermined the employment relationship, an Alberta arbitration board has held.
Ottawa (25 Aug. 2008) - In upholding the dismissal, the board took into account both the hurtful nature of the comments and the employee's belligerent reaction and lack of remorse when she was confronted by management with the blog contents.
To read more about the specific facts and arguments in this case please visit this website: Lancaster House
The Decision
Finding that "the [grievor], in expressing contempt for her managers, ridiculing her co-workers, and denigrating administrative processes, engaged in serious misconduct that irreparably severed the employment relationship, justifying discharge," the arbitration board dismissed the grievance filed by her union, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.
Writing the majority (2-1) decision of the three-member board, Arbitrator Allen Ponak began by noting that "[w]hile the grievor has a right to create personal blogs and is entitled to her opinions about the people with whom she works, publicly displaying those opinions may have consequences within an employment relationship." He observed that "the tone of her blogs placed them very much in the public arena and suggested that the grievor relished addressing a wider audience."
"That a blog is a form of public expression is, or ought to be, self-evident. Unless steps are taken to prevent access, a blog is readable by anyone in the world with access to the internet. The grievor took no steps to prevent access. On the contrary, the tone of her blogs placed them very much in the public arena and suggested that the grievor relished addressing a wider audience.
"In one posting, she specifically invited others to write in and insult people they did not like. In another posting, after venomously caricaturing her colleagues, the grievor warned that those not mentioned in this posting could be next. She used her own name in one of her blogs and disclosed that she worked for the provincial government in Edmonton. The Board rejects any professed ignorance on the grievor’s part of the public dimension of her blog."
Ponak determined that "[t]he contents of the grievor's one-page posting are insulting and contemptuous of her supervisors and those managing the Department…. These comments can only be characterized as insolent and insubordinate, even though they were not accompanied by a refusal to carry out an order or perform her assigned duties."
Ponak considered, however, that "[m]ore damaging to the viability of the employment relationship are the grievor's blog postings about her co-workers." He concluded that "[t]he material contained in the blogs [is] inherently destructive to workplace relationships and inimical to the normal expectations of respect and dignity to which people are entitled when they come to work."
Finding as well that the employee had shown no genuine remorse, Ponak noted that she demonstrated little awareness of the hurt she had caused, and "still did not quite understand what all the fuss was about." He concluded on behalf of the majority of the board that the employer had just cause to dismiss the grievor and that this was not "a case in which the board should exercise its discretion to reduce the penalty."
Blogging has inherent dangers for employees
In his ruling, Ponak noted that blogging is such a new phenomenon that the parties were able to find only one previous arbitration award that dealt with dismissal for comments that an employee had posted on a blog. That case was National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 127 v. Chatham-Kent (Municipality), [2007] O.L.A.A. No. 135 (QL), in which an employee of a nursing home was fired for derogatory comments about management, co-workers and patients.
In Chatham-Kent, Arbitrator David Williamson dismissed the grievance, holding that "the conclusion that must be reached … is that by her actions [the grievor] has provided the employer with just cause to impose discipline on a number of grounds…. First, by a breach of the confidentiality agreement and disclosing residents' personal information on a blog accessible to the public. Second, by making insubordinate remarks about management, work procedures, management decisions, and the general running of the Home and placing these on a blog available to members of the public. Third, that the nature of her comments, their hostility, and the language used to express them, demonstrated a disregard for residents' need for care, and that this was conduct unbefitting a Personal Care Giver in a Home for the Aged, as well as it being inappropriate for her to make the critical comments that she did on a public blog about some of her fellow employees."
The present decision, as well as Chatham-Kent, underscore the dangers inherent in blogging about workplace-related matters without careful consideration of the possible consequences. They make it clear that employees cannot simply invoke free speech to publicly make derogatory comments online about co-workers, management or the employer or to breach confidentiality about internal matters, and that an employer can impose appropriate penalties up to and including dismissal for such misconduct. NUPGE
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
