A Research on the Use of Social Network by Employees

7/29/2019 A Research on the Use of Social Network by Employees

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-research-on-the-use-of-social-network-by-employees 1/29

A RESEARCH ON THE USE OF SOCIAL

NETWORK BY EMPLOYEES AS MEDIUM OF

AIRING GRIEVANCES AGAINST EMPLOYERS

ITS LEGAL ISSUES AND ETHICS



DEFINITION OF TERMS

• Social Networking

• Grievance

• Libel• Legal Ethics

• Online Legal Consultation



SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

• The research was focused mainly on the legal

issues specifically the corresponding rights of

the employers and employees with regard to

airing of grievances by the employees in socialnetworks and whether such can constitute legal

offense on the part of employee and actionable

right on the part of the employer.



SOCIAL NETWORKING ADVANTAGES

AND DISADVANTAGES

• It is a valuable business tool with the

promotional ability to reach a broad range and

high volume of the public.

• Social networks can be a company’s mostpowerful marketing and lead generation tool and

these are free to use.



SOCIAL NETWORKING ADVANTAGES

AND DISADVANTAGES

• Some of the risks attached to employee use

both within and outside the scope of

employment are reduced productivity, threat of

confidential information being exposed, harm or damage to business reputation/brand,

harassment or bullying, legal liability for

employee conduct both within and outside the

course of employment, and unfair dismissal of an employee involving social media use.



THE PHILIPPINES LAWS AND

ENACTMENTS

• RA 8792, otherwise known as the E-Commerce

Act last 2000

• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or RA 10175

• Article III Section 4 of the 1987 PhilippineConstitution

• Article 243 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

• Article 248 of the Labor Code of the Philippines



FOREIGN LAWS AND ENACTMENT

• National Labor Relations Act

– Section 7

– Section 8(a)(1)

• Social Networking Online Protection Act (2012

H.R. 5050)

• Password Protection Act of 2012 (2012 S. 3074)



DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS AND

EMPLOYEES

• If an employee posts unlawful material, whether

defamatory or otherwise, about the employer on

a social networking site, the employer should

write to the employee putting him or her onnotice of the rights that have allegedly been

infringed.

• It should also set out the potential remedies that

it may have against the employee (including anaction for damages) and demand that the

employee immediately remove the offending

material from the website.




EMPLOYEES

• If the employer does not know who the author of

a defamatory statement posted on a social

networking site is, the employer should write to

the social networking site putting it on notice of the potential defamation claim and requesting

this information.

• If the website refuses to provide the information,

depending on the severity of the statement, theemployer could consider applying to the courts

for an order requiring the internet service

provider to disclose the relevant details




EMPLOYEES

• Generally speaking, an employee will be able to

defend a claim of defamation if he can show

that:

– the content of the material was true (regardless of hisor her motives for writing it)

– the material was an honest opinion on a matter of

public interest

– the statement was made in pursuance of some legal,moral or social duty in the public interest (ie

whistleblowing)

– the statement is covered by some form of legal

privilege



EXAMPLES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS RESULTING

FROM EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL NETWORK USAGE

• In October 2010, after an interaction with a new

Assistant Manager, Morris, a Wal-Mart employee, posted

on his Facebook page, “Fuck Falmart! I swear if this

tyranny doesn’t end in this store they are about to get a

wakeup call because lots are about to quit!” Morris wassubsequently disciplined for his Facebook postings. The

NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel concluded that

Morris’s charge against Wal-Mart should be dismissed

because he did not engage in concerted activity; hispostings were merely “an expression of an individual

gripe.”





• Joe Gordon is widely known as the first British blogger to be

dismissed forwork-related comments made online

(Schoneboom 2008). Gordon wrote a general, allegedly

humorous, blog, entitled the Woolamaloo Gazette, about his

life that occasionally touched on his work at the Edinburghbranch of the bookseller Waterstone’s. The comments about

work included complaining about his shift pattern, referring to

his manager as “evil boss” and calling him a “cheeky

smegger” for asking him to work on a bank holiday. He also

referred to the firm as “Bastardstone’s” (Gordon 2004,Barkham 2005). Gordon was dismissed from his position in

early 2005 following a disciplinary hearing, but successfully

challenged the decision on appeal, following the case’s high

profile in the media.





• Catherine Sanderson is a British woman who worked in

France for a British law firm. Like Gordon, her blog was

not strictly work-focused but did occasionally contain

references to her employers, without identifying them by

name. Her comments about her employers mainlyinvolved gently mocking the conservatism of some of the

senior partners. When Sanderson’s employers

discovered her blog, she was dismissed, provoking a

huge storm of negative publicity. Sanderson took her employers to tribunal in France and received

compensation for wrongful dismissal.





• Virgin dismissed 13 staff who participated in a discussion

on Facebook in which passengers were described as

“chavs” and allegations were made that planes were full

of cockroaches (Quinn 2008).The employees were

disciplined on the grounds of bringing the company intodisrepute.





• Former Liverpool footballer Ryan Babel was fined by the

English Football Association for casting aspersions on

the integrity of referee Howard Webb by posting a

doctored photograph of Webb in a Manchester United

shirt on Twitter. In another case, cricketer KevinPietersen was fined by the English Cricket Board for

complaining about being dropped from the England

squad.





• On September 28, 2012, however, the Board issued its

first “Facebook firing” decision, finding that Karl Knauz

Motors, a BMW dealership, did not terminate a

salesperson for engaging in Section 7 activity. The

employee mocked a neighboring dealership (owned bythe same group) relating to a car accident at the

dealership. The ALJ ultimately decided the employee

was actually terminated because of his comments about

the car accident, comments the ALJ found were notprotected under Section 7 of National Labor Relations

Act.





• In a case decided by the Supreme Court of the

Philippines, it held that the enjoyment of a private

reputation is as much a constitutional right as the

possession of life, liberty or property. The law recognizes

the value of such reputation and imposes upon him whoattacks it, by slanderous words or libelous publications,

the liability to make full compensation for the damage

done. (Worcester vs. Ocampo 22 Phil. 42)





• In Filipinas Broadcasting Network Inc. vs. AMEC-BCCM

[GR 141994, 17 January 2005], the court held that

AMEC’s claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of

Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This provision expressly

authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article

2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural

or juridical person.





• The first and celebrated Facebook Faceoff involving “plastic

surgeon to the stars” Dr. Vicki Belo and lawyer -activist Argee

Guevarra which triggered a libel suit after the lawyer called

Belo, “Reyna ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Kapalpakan”, and

depicted her with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoas “Peke-Peke” in the latter’s Facebook account, Antipolo

RTC Judge Lazaro dismissed the criminal libel case against

Guevarra. Judge Lazaro cited a SC decision declaring that

internet libel cannot be prosecuted because of jurisdictional

constraints. Judge Lazaro, however, anchored her dismissalonly on the issue of improper venue without passing on the

substantive issues raised by Guevarra.



LEGAL ISSUES ON THE ROLE OF A LAWYER

IN ONLINE LEGAL CONSULTATION

• Can online legal consultation be considered a

practice of law?

• Does it create an attorney-client relationship?

• Can the court uphold that there is attorney-clientrelationship despite the broad disclaimer that

there is none?

• Will it be covered by legal advertisementprovisions of the Code of Professional

Responsibility?



LEGAL ISSUES ON THE ROLE OF A LAWYER

IN ONLINE LEGAL CONSULTATION

• Can the lawyer be subject to malpractice if he is

found negligent in giving out an advice regarding

the issue?

• Are the employees seeking advice protected inonline legal consultations?

• Will duties of confidentiality be less strict, since

as a rule, messages sent thru the internet are

not secure?



CONCLUDING STATEMENT

• Its legal basis is that anything on Social Networks is in

writing and it is online therefore, it is “public”. If the shout

out and other statements are malicious imputations then

it will cause “dishonor”. If the subject of the imputation is

named, then it is “specific”. If the statement stays for awhile and not removed even the attention of the doer is

called, then it is “repetitive”. The current trends of high

technology, such as internet mails, chats, web posts and

blog posts, fax machines, text messages or shortmessaging through cellular phones may be referred to

as “similar means” of writing because they contain

letters. Since on-line is considered to be written material,

on-line defamation is considered to be libel.




• While it is true that the Supreme Court has no

established jurisdiction to the said matter, this case will

be given its due course in the long run. Internet has

become a means of communication and may be

considered publication which can be used as evidence inthe crime of libel against its author. There is an increase

of defamation cases with the use of social media sites

such as Facebook, Tweeter, MySpace and Multiply as a

medium. To rule otherwise would allow unscrupulousindividuals to abuse others resulting to mental anguish,

serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded

feelings, moral shock and social humiliation.




• The internet has been labeled as a tool of

democratization. The internet provides instantaneous

and worldwide exposure to one’s ideas and works. But

freedom is not absolute. It has its limitations. Libel is one

of those limitations.



RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMPLOYERS

• Employers should have a policy on social

network use which clearly set out the

organization’s expectations of and definitions of

acceptable and unacceptable behavior and theconsequences of violations.

• Adequate internal mechanisms for employees to

raise formal and informal grievances.



RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMPLOYERS

• Respect employee’s rights

• Don’t discipline the employee online

• Remember that it is a two-way mirror



RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMPLOYEES

• Adhere to social network policy implemented by

the employer

• Do not let a social network post gets you in

trouble with your employer • Separate work-related social network posts



RECOMMENDATIONS TO LAWYERS

• A lawyer must utilize a system to know well his

clients

• A lawyer must abstain from all offensive

personality• A lawyer must remember at all time the Lawyer’s

Oath and the Code of Professional

Responsibility

• A lawyer must be fully knowledgeable of the law

and must be updated of any enactments,

amendments, and jurisprudence



THANK YOU!

By:

Jenifer M. Paglinawan

Sheila May R. Siatan

A Research on the Use of Social Network by Employees

Documents