If you follow the news here in New Zealand, you may have heard about an employment law case that has grabbed the attention of the media. The case, involving an offensively iced cake and a photo on Facebook, resulted in the complainant and former employee of a credit union being awarded the largest payout in New Zealand history (almost double the second largest!)

Karen – the former employee of the credit union represented herself in the court case, and was awarded damages on the grounds that the credit union were guilty of a breach of Facebook Privacy and that she suffered a ‘loss of dignity’ as a result of their sharing the offending photo with various recruiting companies.

This could be a point of contention, as Karen took a photo of the offensive cake and elected to share it with her 150 Facebook friends.

She assumed those 150 people would respect her privacy and not share the post with their friends, however it is unsure whether she was aware of the risk of the possible damage to the reputation and brand of the credit union.

Things took an unusual turn when the credit union found about the post after insisting the employee who discovered it revealed the offensive photo. It was then distributed to various recruitment agencies accompanied by a letter.

This act of retribution backfired with the end of result of $168,000 in damages for breach of privacy – $98,000 of which was awarded for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to the feelings of Karen.

Social Media – a Grey Area when it comes to Privacy

So the question is how did this seemingly humorous move on Karen’s part turn sour so quickly? Is social media the right place for a disgruntled employee to air their view about their former employer?

Whilst Karen’s profile itself is tightly private, placing a photo online leaves your images open to being uploaded and shared – friends of friends can also be shown photos that a mutual friend has liked or commented on, so no matter how private your own profile is, you still don’t have total control over who may see your photos.

Surely as an individual or employee, you have to take responsibility for your own social media in the public domain? The media attention of her actions will have a considerable negative impact in the future – particularly when it comes to employment.

Whilst she may have won the battle in court, it will be interesting to see who would seriously employ her given her approach to publicly criticising her former employer.

Discipline vs. Malicious Behaviour

While Karen’s Facebook antics may have been questionable, the credit unions ham-fisted act of retribution in tarnishing Karen’s name and impacting her ability to find work with recruitment agencies went far beyond appropriate discipline. The credit union made no contact regarding the offending photo, but rather used underhand tactics to access and capture the photo, distributing it privately to select parties.

On top of this, the manager involved has now drawn attention for bullying the young, new employee who discovered the photo, until a screen shot was taken. The human resource manager in questions has now been fired for the way she handled the situation

The privacy breach is key here, as had Karen’s profile been placed under more public settings; there would not have been a case. In pushing the employee who discovered the photo to log in and allow her manager to screenshot it, the credit union crossed a line, and then proceeded to push the boat out further by privately contacting recruiters.

Had the employers discovered the post in an entirely organic way, they naturally would have been able to comment on the post or even approach Karen and try to resolve this matter offline, without resorting to reputation smearing.

As a result of their blunder, the credit union in question is already witnessing some negative backlash from the New Zealand public, with many saying they will never deal with the union again.

This is definitely something the company should have considered in the lead up to their actions against Karen. The true cost of such negative attention will be far higher for them than for Karen, and could cost the business thousands of dollars in profits – a bitter pill to swallow for a company who should have known better.

Setting a Questionable Precedent

Cake business aside, the resulting payout alone (particularly the $98,000 given for personal humiliation and stress) is noteworthy. Previously, the highest payout for damages such as humiliation and personal grievance was $40,000 and the average payout in such cases varies between $5000-$7,000.

Many appear to view the payout as excessive – especially when compared to payouts handed down to families of those killed in workplace accidents, for instance. Could this be the Tribunal’s way of warning other employers to handle social media issues with more care?

What this news story highlights is the importance of company policy surrounding employees and ex-employees – something the credit union had apparently not considered prior to these events.

Perhaps the biggest lesson to take away from this is that as an employer it is crucial to have a clear protocol regarding the management of employees online misdemeanors. After all, it’s clear that social media is not going anywhere, and it’s not just individuals who have to worry about their reputation.

This article was kindly supplied by Haystack Jobs.