15 March 2005

Millions of people around the world log on to the internet nowadays and a lot of them also choose to have their own website where they self-publish their thoughts or interests. This chosen form of web logging has got a new name "blogging".

Some may claim this is a new form of virtual democracy that everyone who has access to internet is enjoying and where freedom of speech is virtually free. However, there is a steady increase of concern over the damage these internet postings may cause to the employers.

Employees may often choose to "blog" their negative views or simply their true feelings, putting the employer in a bad light. Sometimes they can even inadvertently associate the employer’s name with their web activities. This was the case in US with a Delta Airlines stewardess who was fired because of publishing logs where she posed in her Delta uniform. The pictures were mildly provocative and one may say fairly innocent, however, Delta did not find it funny and dismissed her.

More recently, a Waterstone’s staff member became one of the first UK employees to get "dooced" – dismissed because of the contents of a blog – for "bringing his company into disrepute". He openly referred to his manager as "bastardstones" and "evil boss". He ended up sharing the same fate as the US flight attendant.

The stewardess appealed to the US Equal Opportunity Commission arguing that she did not know blogging could endanger her position and the bookstore employee claimed that the company did not have any clear guidelines on whether employees are allowed to keep web logs.

There has not been much litigation around so far, however, if similar matters end up in the Tribunals the following questions will be likely to be pondered over: Is it acceptable that freedom of speech should be limited if it protects the rights or reputation of a corporate entity? Should a company enjoy the same right to privacy as humans?

In order to avoid the expensive costs of litigation, employers may be advised to revise their policies and contracts beyond the non-disclosure of confidential information. It is recommended to have clear internet and email policies that cover internet activities outside work. A robust whistleblowing policy is also recommended so that blogging does not become the route by which employees utter their grievances. More specific provisions that limit the permissible contents of a blog and prevent staff identifying the company or criticise its customers can also be introduced. If it is considered necessary, assurances should also be obtained from employees that any views published on their sites are not the company’s views. In addition, it should be made obvious to the employee that any infringement of these provisions would constitute gross misconduct.

However, before taking any decision to dismiss, employers should bear in mind that asserting their legal rights is not always in the company interest. Employers will need to consider the advantages or disadvantages of adverse publicity. Firing the employee will not necessarily mean that the blog will stop and therefore employers may even find themselves in a far helpless position.