Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/317457
6 SUMMER 2014 Doing Business in AtlAntic cAnADA where the employee's posting disparages the em- ployer to other employees or the public and/or where management are identifi ed or identifi able and victims of harassment or bullying within the content of the posting. There was no formal social media policy in place at the newsprint company but employers should have a well thought out coherent policy aimed at informing employees whose social media postings touch the work place, its managers or in- deed innocent fellow employees in such a manner amounting to unacceptable commentary or opin- ion may be subject to disciplinary action includ- ing discharge for a single offence. The suggestion that a different ending may have resulted if the grievor had been able to, with medical evidence assert that there was a medical reason explaining her aberrant behaviour is risky whereas here such medical evidence could not be reconciled with the organized content, the proper identifi cation of those involved, the lack of re- morse and no absenteeism. In this instance, the arbitrator did not accept the grievor's evidence and the content of the Facebook post was no doubt on the extreme end of the spectrum. It was highly objectionable and threatening to the safety of the grievor's supervisors and their fam- ilies, not to mention expressly disparaging of the employer. There was no question for the arbitra- tor as to whether the employee's single Facebook post was a "serious disciplinary offence" which could be relied upon by the employer. This case is a rare fi nding of a single incident just cause termination. Each case must be judged on its individual merits. Many decisions before this decision suggest that clear warning and pro- gressive discipline is the preferred method of dealing with social media transgressions. This case however demonstrates that there are situa- tions where arbitrators conclude the transgres- sion is so abhorrent the removal from the work- place is the only proper result. The CEP, Local 64 and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited (Stokes) decision was released on December 11, 2013. By Rob Aske C anada's new federal anti- spam law comes into force in a signifi cant way on July 1, 2014. The prohibition against spam is a very broad one, and the key focus immediately turns to the exceptions where either the law does not apply to the message, or, consent is not required to send the message. Section 6 of the law contains the basic pro- hibition against sending "commercial electron- ic messages" without fi rstly, consent, and sec- ondly, compliance with certain form and con- tent requirements (including the unsubscribe mechanism). Commercial electronic messages are defi ned broadly to capture emails or other electronic messages that have as one of their purposes "encouraging participation in a com- mercial activity", and "commercial activity" is also broadly defi ned to include any act or conduct of a commercial nature. But for many businesses, there will be exceptions and a tran- sition period which will be helpful, so that it may not be diffi cult to continue to deal with your customers. The fi rst exceptions for consideration under the Act include those which entirely exclude the application of the Act to the message – so Harold Smith, QC, partner st. John's, nl 709.570.8895 hsmith@stewartmckelvey.com A fellow of the college of labor and employment lawyers THE nEW AnTi-spAm lAW – THE big ExCEpTiOns