Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50878
ANSWERS WRONG. The employer has an interest in any activity of an employee, which might undermine and irreparably damage the employment relationship, regardless of whether such activity is undertaken during working hours or using property or technology of the employer. The extent of the employer's interest and of its ability to discipline an employ- ee for his or her online activity will depend on whether the online postings amount to insubordination, constitute harass- ment, cause injury to reputation, or breach the company's confidence, and also on the extent to which such postings are publicly accessible. See the British Columbia Labour Relations Board decision in EV Logistics v. Retail Wholesale Union, Local 580. (D). You need to investigate the matter thoroughly before recommending any disciplinary action or taking any position. Assuming the blog contained defamatory state- ments, insults to co-workers, or would otherwise harm the interests of the company, you must first determine whether the CFO took steps to restrict access to the blog and ensure that it was a private site or whether it was accessible to others on the web. This will be relevant both to the matter of the CFO's intentions and to the potential for and extent of harm to the company and its employees. For reference see the Ontario arbitration award in Chatham-Kent (Municipality) v. CAW - Canada, Local 127. WRONG. If the co-worker did not post the offensive comments and did not respond to them, and unless there is positive evidence that he was somehow complicit in their posting or promulgation, there will likely be no grounds for termination or other discipline as there was no evidence that the co-worker was guilty of harassment. Caution, how- ever, that these cases are always very fact-specific. See the Alberta Arbitration Board ruling Alberta Distillers Ltd. v. U.F.C.W, Local 1118. YOUR RANKING? n One or fewer correct: Might be time to brush up. n Two correct: Not bad, but could do better. n Three correct: Very well done, but not perfect. n Four correct: Impressive. (C). It depends on whether the employer has curtailed the employees' reasonable expectation of privacy by introducing and implementing a policy expressly providing such online activity will be monitored by the employer and it is prohibited or restricted during working hours. An employ- ee's privacy interest during working hours can be narrowly circumscribed by the employer, subject, of course, to certain considerations of personal dignity and of public policy. Visit us online! nt canadianlawyermag.com Fresh conten lawtimesnews.cws.com ma delivered weekly kly. Canadian Lawyer | La 14 • FEBRUARY 2010HouseAd_IH_Feb_10.indd 1 LawTiimes 4Students INHOUSE me mes | 4Students | In ous InHouse 1/13/10 4:15:11 PM ag.com 1 2 3 4