Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Sales Representative     

Local Radio station

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00046510-001

04/10/2021

The worker is employed as a sales representative with the media company since February 2017.

The worker placed a post on the company’s Facebook page in March 2020 alerting customers and potential customers that they were open for placements of advertisements and other business.

The employee states that on foot of this posting, the employer took disciplinary action against him in the form of revoking his ability to post on the employer’s social media page. This was done without any reference to a disciplinary procedure.

He seeks an apology from the employer and a return to his pre-March 2020 duties.

 He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 4/10/2021.

The worker’s job entails selling advertising slots on their media outlet.

At the onset of Covid in March 2020, the worker put up a post on the employer’s Facebook page alerting the public to the availability of advertising opportunities and stating that his employer was open for business while other media outlets were not. Two local media outlets objected, and he apologised to them and thought that was the end of the matter. The employer objected to the tone of the post and, in response, removed his access to their social media pages without adverting to any of the normal protocols or disciplinary code. Up until then he was allowed exercise discretion as to the content of his posts.

The employer posted an apology on their website a day following his posting which the worker believes damaged his standing with the public, potential customers, and peers.

He made efforts to address his concerns with the employer, but they were ignored.

He is looking for an apology from the employer whom he believes mounted disciplinary action against him without treating him fairly or using the disciplinary procedure.

The employer runs a community radio station employing five full time staff including the complainant who is a sales consultant. The Board of Directors consists of twelve voluntary members. The company is principally funded by state funding from Pobal and private sales advertising and sponsorship, the selling of which is the complainant’s primary responsibility in the company.

The worker put up a post on March 25th, 2020, stating that while other media outlets such as newspapers might not be open, they were. The other media outlets were constrained in how they functioned due to the closure of workplaces as a result of the Government Guidelines on   Covid -19. The worker’s message was ‘screen grabbed’ and reposted on Twitter by four local publications. Negative comments were then posted by five other journalists in different publications. The employer felt that the post, contrasting their workplace with others was unfair to those workplaces, constrained as they were by the Covid -19 guidelines, and was damaging to their brand.    

It was agreed at a board level that immediate action should be taken to protect their reputation and so future Facebook posts from the worker would have to be checked by his manager. This was communicated to both him and his manager on 27 March 2020. The Board posted an apology on the 26 March for the worker’s post of the 25 March, acknowledging the impact of Covid -19 on their fellow media outlets.

The worker wrote to the Board July 13th, 2020, objecting to the new controls imposed upon him. The employer responded on July 14th, 2020, asking him to confirm if he was the author of the post. No response was received from the worker. A further request was made to the worker but there was no more engagement until January 26th, 2021, when the Board decided at a meeting with the worker that he had not been negatively impacted by the employer’s apology on their website and the revised arrangements should continue to operate whereby the posts would be submitted to the worker’s manager prior to publication.

The worker was not suspended from social media as claimed.

The apology posted on the website contains no reference whatsoever to the worker and was solely an exercise in damage limitation and reputation restoration among colleagues in the wider media and the public.

In conclusion the employer states that it has acted within its rights as a company to protect its good name and standing among its peers, customers, and the public. They did not damage the worker’s reputation in a personal or professional manner by posting an apology and did not breach his terms and conditions of employment.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker was asked to submit his media posts to his manager after his posting on the employer’s Facebook page on the 25 March 2020. The employer felt was it was an insensitive message about their ability to stay open while other media outlets couldn’t, because of Government Guidelines on Covid -19.  It is their call ultimately to conduct their affairs in a way that minimizes conflict or any disturbance in their relationships with other local media outlets. In the circumstances prevailing at that time, their position was not unreasonable.  I accept that the worker did not intend any offence, but his remark failed to recognise the unequal playing pitch upon which his employer and local media outlets were operating – a result of Covid -19 Guidelines.

I do not consider that it was a disciplinary sanction as no sanction was imposed.

I note that the worker has stated that he would not do such a thing again and, in this way, does regret his omission.

In the circumstances, I recommend that the employer provides training for the complainant in the guidelines to be used in posting public messages on their social media pages.  I recommend that the employer reinstates the arrangements concerning the posting of messages on their Facebook page which were in operation prior to the worker’s posting of the 25 March 2020.

IR complaint: employer’s entitlement to alter processes.