News
Psst ! - heard the latest?
It is often interesting to reflect upon how changing times have had an enormous effect upon the standards that we expect in society.
In Victorian England, for example, it was thought of as a compliment to describe a gentleman as "discriminating". An employer who is similarly described today, of course, might expect to be the respondent to a complaint under the Human Rights Act.
Gossip is another strange commodity - the acceptance of which has changed significantly over the years. In days gone by it was simply not done to exchange salacious secrets. Such was the pastime of lush busy?bodies or those simply with no sense of discretion. How times change.
Now, of course, gossip is far from an unacceptable pastime - it is an entire industry. Any number of those publications that we euphemistically refer to as "women's magazines" dish out a weekly diet of juicy exposés of people's private lives.
In fact, gossip has become such an accepted part of our daily lives that it is almost accepted as a regular feature of our workplaces. "Watercooler" conversations analysing events at office parties - and suggesting possible scenarios - are a regular feature of many New Zealand workplaces.
Although it may seem harmless to some, a recent decision of the Employment Relations Authority illustrates how gossip can be taken very seriously indeed. The applicant in Sheerin v Jamieson Castles Barristers & Solicitors (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Auckland, 1 March 2002) was an employee in a law firm. She was dismissed from her job because she refused to stop making allegations about an affair that she said was occurring between one of the partners in the firm and one of the secretaries.
The Authority found that Ms Sheerin had continued to make allegations about the affair despite warnings being made for her to stop. Her behaviour was held to be a breach of the obligation of good faith owed by her as an employee.
One of the curious features of the decision was a finding that, as a matter of fact, an affair did not occur (we can only assume that the Authority heard evidence from the alleged participants and formed its own view). The Authority held, however, that even if the affair had taken place Ms Sheerin's behaviour still would have been inexcusable. In other words, what made her behaviour unacceptable wasn't the subject matter of her gossip - but rather the fact that she chose to gossip at all.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the case, however, was the part that email played in Ms Sheerin's undoing. Amongst other things, Ms Sheerin disseminated some of her gossip using the firm's email system. The employer was able to produce communications from her to evidence her gossiping. This objective evidence made it difficult for Ms Sheerin to deny her conduct (even though she tried in vain) - and the Authority regarded her emails as incriminating evidence.
Given the undeniable attraction of salacious gossip - and its supposed acceptance in society - many employers may question how their internal email systems are being used. Further, employers may be well advised to consider whether their employees are using their equipment to join those external gossip-warrens that we know as "chat rooms". Not only might an employer take issue with use of its business equipment for these purposes, it may also take issue with such practice as a time waster - which might constitute breaches of the good faith obligations owed by employees.
And I am not the first one to suggest that employers may take action in this regard. We are told that many employers in Europe have already taken steps to curtail their employees' email and internet use by introducing measures to restrict usage of their systems - or, in some cases, even to take away email and internet access entirely. These steps are being taken both to eliminate distractions from gossip prone workers and to reduce potential exposure to liability for such things as defamation actions.
This case serves as a warning to employees that indulging in workplace gossip may constitute a breach of their obligation of good faith. It also serves as a reminder for employers that the elimination of workplace gossip may require them to perform a careful assessment of the use of their computer systems.
