Hotline, Fall, 2008 by Rebecca Murdock,
Local 258 Legal Counsel Blogging that criticizes the employer or co-workers may be grounds for discharge, according to a 2008 arbitration decision from Alberta: (Alberta—and—AUPE, 2008, AGAA No. 20 [Ponak]). “R”, who worked for the Alberta government, blogged that her department was a “lunatic asylum”, and her supervisor was “Nurse Ratchet” or the “Lunatic in Charge”. She similarly caricatured her co-workers using thinly disguised identities. In other postings she reproduced emails and bits of information that disclosed the identity of her employer, and the contents of confidential client files. In finding the employment relationship was irreparably damaged, the Arbitrator took into account that “R” was initially unapologetic and defensive about the blogs, and that the malicious nature of R’s comments regarding her co-workers made a future relationship with them untenable. Conversely, a BC Arbitrator reinstated an employee fired from EV Logistics in Langley when he blogged about his employer and even posted comments that were racist and hateful (EV Logistics v. RWU, Local 580, 2008, BCCAAA No. 22, Laing). The employee was a forklift driver and he was given a second chance because, when confronted, he immediately took down his blog and posted an apology in its place. He also wrote a letter to his employer saying: “I’m just a young barely out of teen years 22-year old guy who made a very childish stupid mistake without thinking about who it could offend or hurt. Most of the entries in the blog were just made up stories people egged me into writing because they thought the hate or death theme was funny.” Instead of termination the Arbitrator imposed a suspension of time served. Because a blog is posted to the world wide web, an employee cannot claim the communication was private and not intended for wide publication. Nor will a defence of “off-duty” conduct succeed where the employer’s name or reputation is diminished through negative comment or a breach of confidential information. Employees may think blogging is protected expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a grave misconception. The Charter does not apply to activities in the private sector. A “freedom of expression” argument can only be brought against the government, its legislation or activities. Employees in the public sector may bring a “freedom of expression” defense to the blogging debate, but it is doubtful that argument will succeed where the comments are satiric or intended to skewer the employer or one’s co-workers. An employee owes his/her employer and co-workers a duty of confidentiality and this includes a cone of silence around the internal foibles of the employer’s operations. Put simply, employees are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to publish their negative opinions to the world wide web. K | 
