State Employer Challenged in Disciplining Employee over Blogging

A State employee in Virginia has successfully grieved a disciplinary finding against him over his blogging in the workplace. The grievor was a business services manager for the State Department of Business Assistance, answering telephone calls and e-mails relating to the services available to businesses in the State. The grievor became a principal contributor to a politically oriented weblog in the course of which he commented (in some cases, favourably), on the director of his government agency. Warned by his supervisor to be careful about the frequency and content of his commentary and to use good judgment, the grievor nevertheless later participated in a cartoon caption contest in which he connected certain humorous phrases with officials purporting to be employed in certain named cities and regions in the State. The time spent on this latter blogging activity was between 45 and 60 minutes on a single afternoon. When complaints were made about the blog's contents, the grievor quickly apologized. However, he was initially disciplined as though his action was the more serious of two types of possible offence, and he was suspended for 10 days. On an appeal to a Hearing Officer, the offence was treated as a less serious one and the penalty was reduced to a written warning. Of the several factors that the Hearing Officer took into account, an important one was that although the grievor had been warned about his activity, the warning was only of a general nature and it did not elaborate, as did the guidelines of some other government departments, on what would constitute permitted "incidental" or "occasional" personal use of the Internet. The Virginia case is a useful reminder that when employers attempt to regulate employees' personal use of the Internet, their case will be stronger if the standards imposed are as specific as possible. For the full decision of the Hearing Officer, David Latham, visit: http://www.edr.virginia.gov/searchhearing/2007-8392%20Decision.pdf Summary by: Michael Migus