Background
Pandora is a manager in a major firm of investment managers, where she is involved with the firm’s graduate recruitment programme, interviewing and evaluating many students and hopeful recruits every year.
One of the areas about which her employer is particularly concerned is the increasing use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, by students and candidates, both before recruitment and once they have joined the firm. Although the firm recently introduced policies concerning social media use, they appear to be practised more in the breach than in the observance.
Greg applied to join the firm while he was at university, where he had a wide circle of friends, with whom he enjoyed an active social life. Much of this was organised using social networking sites, which also carried frequent exchanges among the students and their friends. Many of these postings were light-hearted, some contained things that the writers might wish they hadn’t said and some were possibly actionable.
Greg’s older cousin, Bill, has been working at the firm for several years, in a different unit from that to which Greg has applied and is a valued employee. He has kept in regular touch with Greg, and other colleagues, both by email from his account at the firm and more recently via Facebook, which he has only recently started to use.
On more than one occasion, Bill has communicated, via Facebook, with Greg and a small circle of friends and colleagues, expressing frustration with senior management of the firm, in a negative manner. Bill did not realise that Sam, who is friendly with Bill’s supervisor, Howard, is among the recipients of these communications. Sam felt strongly that Bill’s messages were inappropriate and did not reflect well upon the firm, especially among potential recruits. Greg has also responded to Bill’s messages with some dismay, wondering whether the firm is right for him. Accordingly, Sam felt obliged to report the nature of these messages to Howard and to the firm’s human resources department.
In the meantime, Greg has spent a number of days going through a rigorous selection process and was pleased that he has been offered a job, in a different unit to Bill’s, subject to satisfactory references and confirmation of his academic achievements.
The firm’s recently instituted social media policy states that: “excessive use of company email for non-business purposes could result in limitations on the use of email by the individuals concerned.” It further states that: “negative comments made publicly by an employee about the firm, whether in written, oral or electronic form, could result in disciplinary action being taken against the employee.”
Having been informed of the content of Bill’s negative messages, the human resources department contacted not only Howard, but also Pandora, who was about to confirm the job offer with Greg, whose references and academic achievements were exemplary. They also examined Bill’s company emails and discovered numerous examples of internal and external communications, which were more of a social than a business nature. There were also some messages that were critical of the firm.
The Dilemma
The next day, Howard asked Bill into his office to discuss the matter. Bill was taken aback. He admitted occasional use of company email for purposes that were not strictly corporate, but claimed this was by no means excessive; and he said that his critical comments of the firm were not indicative of his actual sentiments, but were delivered jokingly, and in retrospect, foolishly. He maintained that the Facebook communications were a private dialogue between him and a few close friends and did not contravene company policy in terms of any public derogatory remarks. He sought to minimise any potential damage that might have been done to the firm as a result of these remarks, saying that Greg seemed keen to join the firm. Bill expressed deep regret at what may have been perceived as malice or sarcasm in his Facebook communications, which like his emails were delivered in a tongue-in-cheek spirit. Howard listened, then reinforced the firm’s policy with Bill, ending the meeting inconclusively.
Immediately following this conversation, Bill telephoned Greg outside of the office to seek further information on what the firm may have seen on Facebook and warned him that this could negatively impact them both. He also wondered whether it was within the firm’s rights to delve into his personal communications.
Possible Options
Both Howard and Pandora were uncertain about what to do next, with regard to Bill and Greg. On the one hand, Bill has appeared to act improperly in his use of the firm’s email to make critical remarks about the firm, as well as sending quite a few messages of a non-business nature.
On the other hand, these appear to be relatively isolated instances on the part of an otherwise valued employee. More problematic, however, is the consideration of the external Facebook communication with Greg and a few others, which could be viewed as a private conversation, albeit electronically recorded.
Pandora also has to consider how this may affect Greg, who is poised to join the firm and is not in apparent contravention of policy. The firm must act fairly with regard to Bill and Greg and be seen to do by the outside world. This is particularly important as the social media policy has only just been instigated and this will be an initial test of it.
These thoughts led to Howard and Pandora considering four possible options:
- Bill should be let off with a warning and Greg should be hired, with reinforcement to both of them of the firm’s policies.
- Disciplinary action should be taken against Bill (which could include termination of his employment) and Greg’s recruitment should be terminated.
- Greg should be hired as planned, but Bill’s employment should be terminated for his conduct.
- They feel unable to deal with it and decide to refer the matter to the compliance and legal department.
Verdict
Bill should be let off with a warning and Greg should be hired and the importance of adherence to the firm’s policies should be stressed to both of them.
Given that the firm’s policy is still relatively new and untested and the private nature of the communication, this response is softer than is likely to be the case as the policy becomes more established.
Further reading