December 6, 2023
Conduct on social networking sites has been the subject of litigation in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. In Lougheed Imports Ltd., two employees employed by West Coast Mazda, an automotive detailing and accessory shop in Pitt Meadows, B.C., were terminated as a result of a series of Facebook postings described as “offensive, insulting and disrespectful.” Both employees were strong supporters of a union drive, and both were Facebook friends with a manager at the company. The manager was disturbed to find that the employees’ Facebook postings targeted management, the business and the products sold by the business.
The employer conducted an investigation and met with each employee. In the meetings, the employees were provided copies of their Facebook postings. Both employees denied making the postings. Following the meetings, both employees were terminated. The union filed unfair labour practice complaints with the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, alleging the employer did not have just cause for the terminations. The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that “[t]he fact that the complainants had no previous discipline and the employer knew they were key supporters of the union does not outweigh the fact that the employer had never encountered similar conduct, and the work offence was serious insubordination and conduct damaging to the employer’s reputation.” The Vice-Chair relied on the Ontario decision in Leduc v. Roman, and determined that the employees could not have an expectation of privacy as Facebook postings were “akin to comments made on the shop floor.”
The same issues were also dealt with in Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, where an administrative employee in the Alberta Public Service was dismissed after her employer had become aware of the contents of her personal blog. The blog contained unflattering comments about a number of her co-workers and management. The union, in challenging the dismissal, argued that the discipline was excessive and that the employment relationship could be restored. The arbitration board ruled that the conduct of the grievor was serious enough to undermine the employment relationship beyond repair, justifying discharge. The grievor had been unapologetic and defiant about her blog, demonstrating little awareness of the hurt that she had caused. She also defended her freedom of expression, refused to remove the blogs, and threatened more postings after she was told that she had been terminated.
The union applied for judicial review of the arbitration board’s decision and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench quashed the award on the ground that the arbitration board erred in finding that the employer had complied with the disciplinary process set out in the collective agreement. The Court did not, however, address whether the dismissal was just in the circumstances. The judicial review and a subsequent appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal were both dismissed. The reasoning in the initial arbitration appears to continue to be good law in Canada as it has been followed in later cases.
In a different B.C. case, EV Logistics, the employee had been discharged because of the contents of his blog which contained violent fantasies and racist comments. The blog also identified the company as the blogger’s employer. The employer argued that discharge was justified because of the offensive, racist and hateful entries in the blog and because of the harm to the employer’s legitimate business interests and its reputation. The union argued that the postings on the blog occurred entirely off-duty and that there was no connection between the business interests of the employer and the employee’s conduct. The arbitrator held that there was a connection between the blogging and the business interests of the company; however, there were sufficient mitigating factors to justify a reduction in the disciplinary penalty of discharge and the grievor was reinstated without compensation.
In Chatham-Kent, an Ontario employee was dismissed for breach of the confidentiality agreement, insubordination and conduct unbefitting a personal care giver because of the contents of her blog. The employee posted comments about her employer and the conditions in the retirement home as well as personal information about the residents in the retirement home without their consent. The union argued that the discipline was excessive. In dismissing the grievance, the arbitrator held that the blog comments were insolent, disrespectful, and contemptuous of management and were an attempt to undermine management’s reputation and authority. The grievor also breached the employer’s confidentiality agreement by disclosing personal information of residents on a website she had created which was accessible by the general public.
The emerging framework from these cases was confirmed by the decision in Wasaya Airways LP. An airline pilot with a company owned by a number of First Nations was discharged after posting “extremely serious, offensive and derogatory comments regarding the Company’s owners and customers” (i.e. Indigenous people) on Facebook. The pilots union argued that the discipline was excessive. The arbitrator cited Alberta and Chatham-Kent for the proposition that “where the internet is used to display commentary or opinion, the individual doing so must be assumed to have known that there is potential for virtually world-wide access to those statements.” The arbitrator concluded that while the grievor’s misconduct was deserving of some penalty, the postings were intended to be humorous and there were several mitigating factors. The arbitrator further noted that the grievor would be unable to work effectively as a pilot with either the owners of the airline or its customers given the nature of the posting and ordered that a four-month suspension with compensation be substituted for the discharge but on condition that the grievor resign. By Jennifer Bond and George Waggott, McMillan LLP. This article is reprinted here with the permission from George Waggott.
More About This Topic: Social Media Policies in the Workplace: Tips
This article may not be republished without the express permission of the copyright owner identified in the article.