The proud moments when our men’s football team made it to the Euro 2020 final and Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix have been overshadowed by the reprehensible racism exhibited by a noticeable minority through physical violence, criminal damage and online posts.
We have seen examples in the media of people being ‘outed’ for posting racist comments online by individual bystanders who have been able to find their LinkedIn profiles and then contact relevant employers calling for the employee in question to lose their job. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. But what can an organisation do in these circumstances, if it wants to demonstrate that it stands against racism and discrimination?
Why take action?
The way that an organisation responds to issues like this sends a message about its ethos and culture. Demonstrating a firm approach to racism and discrimination is not only the right thing to do morally but it can improve employee confidence in the organisation, which can assist with employee retention and attracting good people. Furthermore, if the employee can be identified as an employee of the organisation, this can also damage the wider reputation of the organisation and damage relationships with employees, clients and customers. Setting an example may also deter others from being racist online.
Can you discipline employees for personal social media posts?
Depending on the posts in question and the wider circumstances, even if this takes place outside of work, this could be regarded as misconduct and may also be considered a reputational issue for the organisation, both of which may warrant disciplinary action (including dismissal).
However, it is always important to follow a fair process, conduct a thorough investigation of the incident, have evidence of the posts, likely audience and reach (for example, the number of impressions a post received to evidence the potential damage) and importantly to give the employee in question a chance to plead their side of the story and any mitigating factors.
Is it appropriate in the circumstances?
In the absence of clear contractual obligations prohibiting such conduct, for an employee’s conduct outside work to form the basis of a fair dismissal, it must affect (or at least be capable of affecting) the employee’s work or the employer.
The first link tying the employee’s conduct to their job, and their employer, is the employer being identifiable from the posts. This could be where the employee’s social media profile specifically states who they work for or where the posts have been reported to the employer by another individual.
If the posts are available completely publicly, for example on Twitter, or on sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn where colleagues, clients or customers can see, this would indicate a risk to the organisation’s reputation. Pressure from third parties (including other employees, customers and/or suppliers) for the employer to take action against the employee can also be taken into account when investigating these matters. Please do note that monitoring employees online throws up some very tricky data protection and privacy issues.
Employers need to ensure that disciplinary action is reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances. Regardless of good intentions, if employers do not follow a fair process when dismissing an employee, they would be very likely to lose an unfair dismissal case. This would not only incur the substantial legal costs involved in defending such a claim, but could leave them liable for a year’s salary (plus a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code). That said, contributory conduct can be taken into account by a tribunal, which in some circumstances could reduce the compensation to nil even when the disciplinary process followed was not fair.
How would an Employment Tribunal assess the case?
Cases considering the fairness of a dismissal on the basis of conduct outside of work will always be highly fact sensitive and the usual "range of reasonable responses" test applies.
In order to pass this test, employers must take a proportionate view of all of the circumstances. Appropriate considerations might include:
- The conduct in question – what did the posts contain? Would it amount to a criminal offence?
- Consider the impact/potential impact on the organisation versus the impact on the employee in question.
- Has the organisation’s stance on matters of equality been made clear to the workforce? Is this clear in contracts, policies and training?
- Are there aggravating or mitigating factors?
Making it easier to manage these issues
Having a clear policy, categorising posting or sharing racist or otherwise discriminatory posts on personal social media accounts as gross misconduct, can make justifying disciplinary action much more straightforward. However, the response will still need to be reasonable overall and employers should also maintain a consistent approach to such matters.
When training staff, it is important to make clear that the employer has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to racism, discrimination and harassment. Explain the reasons for this, and the consequences.
If you need advice on this topics covered in this blog, please contact a member of the Employment Law team.
About the Author
Nadjia Zychowicz has versatile experience supporting corporate and education sector clients as well as senior executives in a broad range of employment law matters. Nadjia is meticulous and methodical in style and puts her clients at ease with her approachable nature and direct manner.
Latest blogs & news
World Menopause Day was held on 18 October 2021. It is an opportunity to break the stigma and taboo that still exists around menopause and to encourage open dialogue about what is a natural and very significant transition in a woman’s life.
Coronavirus is having a serious impact on businesses and the global economy. Sadly, many businesses have been impacted to the extent that they have or will have to put cost-cutting measures in place. For some individuals this will result in their role being put at risk of redundancy.
In light of the announcement that an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022, Kingsley Napley hosted a webinar last week on the theme of Preparing for Public Inquiries in conjunction with Blackstone Chambers and FTI Consulting. For anyone who missed this event, a recording is available here (LINK) and we have also prepared the summary below.
The Youth Mobility Scheme allows employers to access younger workers from countries such as India and Iceland for two years. With skills shortages afflicting critical sectors, now might be the time for the government to consider a youth visa agreement with the EU.
In revised guidance first published in July, the Government stated that it is no longer instructing people to work from home if they can. In line with that, many employers have planned and begun implementing a return to the workplace. However, as the latest figures and the Government’s recently published Autumn and Winter Plan seem to indicate, it is clear that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will continue to be a genuine and serious one for some time.
From being the centrepiece of England’s post-Covid recovery with ‘eat out to help out’, the hospitality sector is now struggling to rebuild after lockdowns, furlough and rising food prices. At the same time many restaurants, cafes and pubs are coming up against the hard realities of a post-Brexit immigration policy and discovering what it means for their business.
Earlier this year it was announced that the Government had plans to consult on changes to our flexible working regime. The Government’s Consultation Paper has now been published and illustrates the Government’s intentions regarding how flexible working rights will operate in future.
A recent case has highlighted a trend that that we have seen over recent years, with Employment Tribunals finding that the dismissal of a senior executive can be fair where there has been a breakdown in relations amongst a management team and one director / executive is considered to be more at fault (Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd EAT/0070/20). Also, the procedural requirements for such dismissals may be more limited, in this case, the fact that no right of appeal was offered did not render the dismissal unfair.
You may be surprised to learn that, without realising it, you may be a whistleblower. If you are a manager, you could easily come across a situation in which you are expected to manage (or even dismiss) a whistleblower, without anyone warning you of the dangers.
Employers have a duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of their staff and this includes those facing such allegations, says Bina Patel
In recent weeks, a number of commentators have predicted the “Great Resignation”—a mass exodus of employees leaving their jobs following the wake-up call the pandemic has afforded them. Microsoft research has indicated that almost half of the worldwide workforce is ready to resign this year, with just under 40% of UK and Irish workers saying they are ready to quit. Many have had cause to re-evaluate their careers during COVID and with lockdown restrictions set to ease further, people are considering their options. If the “Great Resignation” is upon us, there are a few things employers and employees should bear in mind.
“Freedom Day”, and what it actually means in practice, is not proving to be as straightforward as some had hoped (and arguably as the Government had initially led the business community to believe). Employers can be forgiven for feeling confused as to what is expected of them and what they should be doing in terms of bringing their employees back into the workplace. We are by no means at the end of the debate, but we summarise below, the latest developments
We have seen examples of people being ‘outed’ for posting racist comments online by individual bystanders who have been able to find their LinkedIn profiles and then contact relevant employers calling for the employee in question to lose their job. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. But what can an organisation do in these circumstances, if it wants to demonstrate that it stands against racism and discrimination?
Most disputes between partners of professional services firms are settled either through confidential negotiations or arbitration. A public resolution of the matter through a full hearing and reported judgment is a rare occurrence. A recent example of such a case involving an ex-partner of a law firm is a useful reminder that it is difficult to challenge profit share or bonus decisions as an irrational exercise of discretion.
In a case that attracted national media coverage and emphasises the crucial importance of regulatory compliance and the highest standards of professional conduct in the financial services sector, the High Court dismissed a breach of contract claim brought by an investment manager.
So the Prime Minister has announced that most restrictions in place due to the coronavirus pandemic will be lifted on 19 July, despite acknowledging that the pandemic itself is far from over and that case numbers are expected to continue rising.
In recent weeks, it has introduced a formal workplace policy providing paid time off for all staff who are directly or indirectly affected by pregnancy loss. This is not only a significant enhancement to the provisions required by law but is also, I understand, the first of its kind being put in place by a UK law firm. We hope other firms in our sector and beyond will follow suit and normalise protection in this space, thereby supporting the wellbeing of those affected and protecting talent.
When deciding whether to focus on the discrete allegations or look beyond them, employers need to balance confidentiality with duty of care to employees, says Mark McWilliams.
Employers need to show the individual’s behaviour clearly affected the organisation’s reputation or their colleagues, says Catherine Bourne.