Firefighter argued he didn't have 'sufficient social media training' at work
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a worker’s unfair dismissal claim after he said he was harshly fired over posts he made on a private Facebook group.
He argued that those were all “jokes” that shouldn’t be taken seriously and that he had an amazing work history. On the other hand, the employer said that he should have been aware of the company’s social media policy and that his “sexist and racist” posts harm the workplace.
The worker was a Qualified Leading Firefighter (QLFF) based at HMAS Albatross, Nowra. He was dismissed due to alleged misconduct at work.
His employer investigated his social media activities and found that he belonged and participated in a private Facebook group called “Sickos Video Sharing Group,” which had around 15 employees.
According to records, membership in this group was among firefighters assigned on defence bases, which is described as “cliquey.”
In the group, the worker used a pseudonym and posted comments that discussed work equipment, decisions of management, and co-workers.
The employer said the content in the Facebook group “was of a sexual nature that objectifies or demeans women.” It argued that “bullying of work colleagues [is] itself a work-related matter.”
It said the worker’s conduct of “posting sexually explicit content and bullying of work colleagues, on the Sickos Video Sharing Group,” was a valid reason for his dismissal, adding that he had “ample opportunities” to respond to the allegations against him.
The employer also said that under its bullying and harassment policy, he performed “unacceptable workplace conduct,” and under the employer’s policy on “social media standards,” he violated the rules.
‘It was never my intention’
The worker wrote to the employer and explained why he shouldn’t be fired, including his work history. He said his “conduct occurred in private” and that it was either “in jest or light-hearted banter” or a “joke.”
He wrote:
“Firstly, I’d like to apologise for my actions and how they have been viewed by the employer. It was never my intention to offend or harass anyone in or outside of the private group. Upon reflection I can understand the position that I have put the employer in, and there was never any intent to harm or potentially harm the [employer’s] brand, its employees or its values,” he said.
He said that he has “never been late to work, missed a shift and have actively assisted other staff members with shift swaps to assist in a healthy work/life balance,” he said.
“I am no longer involved in the group in question; I have always been cautious about what I post on the public social media platforms, and I am genuinely sorry people outside the closed chat group were exposed to the material sent. I understand that this whole process has had an impact on all involved and I can only apologise,” he added.
In the same letter, the worker commented on the enforcement of the employer’s social media policy, saying he doesn’t “recall ever receiving structured, formal training” from the employer “about the use of social media and the potential implications.”
“At the time, I genuinely didn’t see my involvement in the Facebook group as impacting on or potentially impacting on the workplace,” he said.
No sufficient training
The employer insisted that the worker should have known not to post inappropriate posts about the workplace, however, the worker argued that he did not have “sufficient training to allow him to have a clear understanding about the employer’s expectations about private social media communications and how they may be perceived to be conduct that is relevant to the employment relationship.”
He said he “did not have the benefit of clearly articulated policies and expectations at the time of the alleged misconduct.”
He further said the employer had other disciplinary options available to it, such as warnings and targeted training requirements.
Reinforcing a culture of work
On the other hand, the employer maintained its position that his dismissal was reasonable, arguing that he was on “an online medium which was predominantly made up of work colleagues, in which they discussed work issues and posted other work-related content (such as a photo of a roster), and in circumstances where those work colleagues who dared to leave the Sickos Video Sharing Group were labelled as “soft as butter,” “powder puff,” “softcocks” and “pussies.”
It said that objectively, “this was likely to reinforce a culture of work colleagues – like it or not –and continuing to be exposed to [worker’s] sexist, misogynist and racist posts, lest they be labelled in similar ways if they were to leave,” it said.
The commission’s decision
In its decision, the commission noted that the worker “has been a model employee who has been fast-tracked through the employer’s classification structure due to his exceptional work ethic and the additional training that he has undertaken and paid for himself.”
“He has made a mistake. Based on his conduct during the investigation and his evidence.”
The commission said it was satisfied that the worker “has learnt his lesson, [and] was truly sorry for his actions, and will not be undertaking any activity which may be regarded as demeaning towards women, or which is contrary to the employer’s policies in the future.”
It also noted the setting where the worker sent the content. “Relevantly, the majority of his posts were made outside of work hours,” it said.
“He is entitled to a private life and the Commission does not sit in moral judgement of the worker’s conduct in his private life,” the commission concluded.
Thus, it ruled that the worker’s dismissal was unfair, harsh, and unreasonable. It ordered the employer to reinstate him in his former position.
