Even though her employer was not mentioned in the comment, Caz Marshall, 22, of Hackham, was dismissed last month by Coles from her checkout job at its Edwardstown supermarket.
"Had I wrote it on the staff room wall or on the (Facebook) walls of everybody who works in that store to single this person out, yes, that would be different," said Ms Marshall, who worked for Coles and Bi-Lo since 2005.
"But the fact it was a private conversation between me and another girl from work . . . it wasn't even intended for the person I was writing about to read it."
Ms Marshall said she removed the comment - which was posted on another person's "wall" and was visible to other visitors to that page - the following day but it had already been shown to store management. They said she had breached company policy.
Ms Marshall said she was called to a meeting and shown "six months' worth" of older Facebook posts she had written and was sacked - a move she thought was extreme.
"I just feel like I could have been given another chance, I don't feel like I necessarily had to be fired," she told the Sunday Mail.
A Coles spokesman confirmed Mss Marshall was "dismissed for a serious breach of our code of conduct", which stated "team members must not make any disparaging or untruthful remarks about other team members".
He said an internal reminder sent to all staff in August had warned "publishing inappropriate or disparaging material on online forums about fellow team members or customers also constitutes a breach of our code of conduct".
Responding to a comment written by a friend and colleague, Ms Marshall said she became angry and posted a degrading comment on Facebook about the co-worker and suggested she "will get what's coming to her".
However she said after being called to a meeting with her Coles management, she now realised her reference to "karma" could also be interpreted as threatening.
Ms Marshall said she regretted posting the comments when her emotions were raised. "It was anger, it was frustration, this girl - she was my friend and she was hurting," she said.
"You're sticking up for someone, you want to make them feel better, to let her know that she wasn't alone.
"It wasn't something that I would normally do. It was done in the heat of the moment and the threat was not something I would carry out - it's not in my character."
Industrial relations experts and social media commentators agree the law is murky on such workplace issues and legislation, as well as society in general, saying it needed to "catch up" with the responsibilities of the online social networking phenomenon.
Adelaide University workplace relations specialist and law professor Andrew Stewart said the impact of online behaviour on workplaces was a growing area and provoked more and more disputes as conversations once kept in pubs, cafes or barbecues were moving online, thrusting the usually private into the public domain.
"In broad terms, the view that the courts and industrial tribunals generally take is that an employer is entitled to take an interest in what happens outside the workplace where there is a clear impact either on the employer's business or on relations in the workplace itself," Prof Stewart said.
He said there had been cases in which employees were dismissed fairly after events that occurred "well away from work, where the incident has the potential to create friction or difficulties within the workplace between people who need to work together".
Prof Stewart also warned people could leave themselves open to civil and criminal defamation claims with potentially severe consequences because of comments published online.
Last year, in an Australian first, an Adelaide man was convicted of criminal defamation after posting false and malicious material about a police officer on Facebook.
Christopher James Cross, of Salisbury, then 19, pleaded guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court and was placed on a two-year, $500 good behaviour bond.
Social network strategist Laurel Papworth said she considered Facebook to be a private arena or "gated community" where privacy settings allowed users to confirm who could become their online "friends" and have access to their information.
But she said this also raised issues about trust and users should be aware of the differences between their personal and professional voices when they made comments online.
"Australians are now learning that they're a `band of one' and I think what's happening is that they are not realising that they're liable for things they do on weekends and holidays. It has to do with the fact we are broadcasting and publishing, people don't realise they're publishing," she said.
Civil liberties expert Professor George Williams, a strong supporter of free speech, believed people should be entitled to express an opinion without facing dismissal - unless there was a clear-cut case of breaching conditions, such as posting company secrets online. But he also said social networkers needed to be aware of the ramifications of their comments.
"They are in the public domain but people do often express private thoughts and I don't think the law or society has caught up with that," he said. "I think this is an area where there is a need for urgent action by law-makers to make sure that the law is in a satisfactory state."
Ms Marshall said she had learned a lesson and now planned to use Facebook only for positive comments and to stay in touch with friends.
She warned others to stay offline when angry: "Don't go near the computer, don't go near facebook."
Fiona McWhirter, Maria Cabrera
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
Interesting, isn't it? I'm glad that you are reading..keep it up!
ReplyDeleteyup...thank you miss for your support...:)
ReplyDelete