Dooced
The term “Dooced” refers to termination for work related blogging and was coined by Heather Armstrong after she was fired for blogging about her work and co-workers. Other cases of fired bloggers include Delta Airlines flight attendant Ellen Simonetti writing “Queen of the Sky Blog” and Sparks Tribune reporter Tom Darby writing “Tom Uses His Words”. Well known companies that have purportedly fired employees for blogging include Wells Fargo, Friendster. and Waterstone book store. Canadian organizations terminating bloggers include a Toronto Starbucks, Nunavut Tourism and the Manitoba Health Science center.
The most recent case to make international headlines in this area concerns Catherine Sanderson, a secretary working for the British accounting firm and Dixon Wilson, in Paris and writing “La Petite Anglaise”, an on-line Bridget Jones-like diary. She was terminated by the firm for blogging that referenced her workplace and for other reasons that included blogging while at work, referring to a sexual interlude, and for making comments about her work that could bring the firm into disrepute. The French tribunal overturned the dismissal and awarded Ms. Sanderson 44,000 euros in damages and her legal costs.
The cases all have in common (to a greater or lesser degree) an anonymous employee that vents about some workplace related matter. The employee’s identity is discovered and the company dismisses the employee on the basis of disrepute brought onto the company’s reputation.
“Le Petite Anglaise†appears to be an exception where the employee was awarded damages for the dismissal. The tribunal seems to have found that the blogging content was unrelated to the workplace and not detrimental to the employer’s reputation.
The Canadian cases are most relevant for the purpose of this discussion, but in general it can be said that if an employee is prepared to make a negative comment about the workplace, co-workers or management, termination will be justified. The larger issues at hand concern freedom of speech, off work site conduct, and employee fidelity. As an employee, if you are prepared to publicly air your discontent with the employer you should be prepared for dismissal. As an employer, you should allow your employees the right to express themselves within the confines of expression that they would otherwise be entitled to.
It’s difficult to know where to draw the line; blogging and the workplace is becoming something of an issue. For employers, the easiest way to determine an appropriate response to an employee’s blogging is to consider the conduct as if it were in an off-line context. Employees should not use company time to blog about personal matters, nor for any work-related blogging in the nature of the following:
The employer’s need to be vigilant isn’t just about protecting the company’s reputation. Consider liability to shareholders that see a drop in value due to rumours and innuendo spreading on the internet about a key company product. Liability based on damage to an employee’s reputation harmed by unchecked workplace related blogging harassment is another possible scenario. As an employer you can’t let improper employee conduct go unchecked on or off-line.
Dealing with a blogging employee is much easier when you have a blogging policy in place. A policy should deal with issues such as anonymity, delineation between the views of the company and the blogger, work place confidentiality, respect for co-workers, management and customers, misuse of company resources, copyright and defamation issues and consequences of a policy breach.
Finally as an employer you need to use good judgement based on sound employment law principles and advice to deal with the wayward blogger. If in doubt act cautiously, be fair and consistent and seek advice from someone that can help you deal with the issue in a cost effective and preventative manner.