Social networking hazard

This was the lesson learned by Dawnmarie Souza, an American, who was dismissed from her employment in 2009 for posting negative comments about her supervisor on her Facebook account.

The subject posting was made by Souza with the use of her own computer and while off duty.

The company claimed her posting violated its rule that prohibits workers from making “disparaging, discriminatory or defamatory comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors, co-workers and/or competitors.”

She questioned the validity of her dismissal with a US labor court which, after hearing both sides, ruled in her favor.

The court stated that her dismissal violated her right to free speech and that the company’s rules on blogging and Internet communications between employees were overly broad.

Not wanting to prolong the dispute between them, the parties entered into an amicable settlement.

The company agreed to review its policies to make sure they do not unduly curtail the employees’ right to discuss among themselves during their free time the terms and conditions of their employment.

It further agreed not to impose disciplinary action on its employees for engaging in such discussions.

Restrictions

As is the practice in labor settlement cases in the US, no further details were disclosed about the amount of money the company paid Souza to put an end to this precedent-setting case.

No doubt, though, Souza would not have agreed to the settlement if it did not make provisions for the payment of the services of her lawyer, plus a certain sum to compensate her for the emotional trauma she suffered for her temporary job loss.

So far, there have been no reported cases of Filipino employees being fired from work for bad-mouthing their employers or posting unsavory remarks about their colleagues in their social network accounts.

Aware of the addictive influence of social networking, most local companies have adopted rules that restrict (if not totally bar) access by their employees to those sites during office hours using company-owned computers.

Catching violators is easy because all forms of use of the company’s Internet facilities are captured in its server or database. The computer keys pressed leave “fingerprints” in the system that give a record of who made them and when they were made.

Thus, employees have been heard to complain about the violation of their privacy when their employers monitor the use of the computers.

Monitor

Employers have raised two arguments to justify such action: ownership of the computers and potential liability for wrong usage.

Since they own the computers that operate within their premises, they have every right to make sure they are used properly, regardless of their hours of use.

Besides, if those computers are used for illegal purposes, the company could find itself in serious trouble with the law for providing, wittingly or unwittingly, the instruments that made possible the commission of a crime.

But what if the computers are owned by the employees and their social-networking activities are done outside company premises and while off duty?

This brings us to the situation that Souza found herself before she was dismissed from her employment.

Suppose a Filipino employee who has a social network account uses his own computer during his free time to, for example, accuse his supervisor of sexual harassment or a fellow employee of being a company spy.

In true Internet fashion, where uploaded materials can quickly spread in cyberspace, those derogatory statements were read by the persons involved and the company’s customers.

By accident or through some means, the company was able to gain access to the employee’s account and confirmed that he was the source of those statements.

Responsibility

Assuming the company’s rules of discipline prohibit its employees from making verbal or written statements in public that tend to blacken the reputation of fellow employees, is the employee liable for disciplinary action for such action?

I think he is. I doubt if “right to free speech” is available as a defense in this kind of situation. As the oft-repeated legal dictum goes, free speech does not include the right to shout “fire” in a crowded movie house.

Free speech is not a license to malign, insult or humiliate the name, honor or integrity of another person.

Neither can it be argued that the statements are in the nature of private conversations among friends and were not meant to be made known outside of that circle.

Every person is responsible for the direct and proximate causes of his acts. Even if those statements were intended to be “just among us girls” but nonetheless found their way around the World Wide Web at the flick of a finger, they have, in effect, become public.

Anybody who thinks that materials uploaded in or sent through the Internet can remain confidential is fooling himself.

It’s bad enough that a person could lose his job for improper statements made in his social network account. Worse, he could find himself facing a criminal complaint for libel.

So before pressing the “Enter” key in your Facebook, Twitter or whatever social network account, make sure there is nothing in what you wrote that could put you into trouble. –Raul J. Palabrica, Philippine Daily Inquirer

(For feedback, em-mail rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph.)