Commonwealth Bank social media policy raises questions over control of employee actions online

The Commonwealth Bank is set to meet with the Financial Services Union to discuss the company’s controversial social media policy, which requests that workers inform the bank if they see any negative comment about the company on a social media site, including their own Facebook page.

But one legal expert says the policy highlights the fact businesses do have the authority to request employees report knowledge of those derogatory comments, although they may not have the power to request they be deleted.

The FSU says the policy, which was unearthed by Business Specator, is much too broad, saying it “does not properly reflect the contractual conditions of the employment” of CBA’s workers.

“The FSU believes the policy is so broad that it goes beyond conduct which the bank could legitimately claim involved damage to its reputation or interest and/or was such as to give rise to a concern about an employee’s implied contractual obligation of good faith and loyalty,” the union says.

However, the Commonwealth Bank has said in a statement it believes the policy allows it to help customers quicker through social media.

“The Commonwealth Bank considers social media to be a very important part of its communication and customer engagement processes. In this regard, the Bank recently introduced a Social Media Policy for its staff.”

“Many customer issues and complaints raised through social media channels have been resolved through staff tip offs and we encourage our staff to continue to alert us to this feedback so we can provide customer support and outcomes.”

The statement also confirmed that a meeting had been arranged with the FSU to address its concerns, and said that it may amend the policy “where it is considered reasonable to do so”.

The social media policy itself makes fairly standard requests that employees posting on social media sites broadcast they are CBA workers and they do not speak officially for the company.

However, the FSU has taken issue with one part of the policy that mandates employees report any type of negative comments they see made by friends or family on social networks, including Facebook and Twitter.

“Inappropriate or disparaging content and information stored or posted by others (including non-employees) in the social media environment may also damage the group and its reputation,” the policy states.

“For example, your friend could post an inappropriate comment about the group on your Facebook page or create a blog about the group.”

The policy then goes on to say that employees aware of any such comments should contact the company’s media and communications team, and provide them with any assistance if the company wants to get that material deleted or amended.

Failure to comply with the social media policy can result in termination.

The FSU has said in a statement it has four main complaints with the policy:

• The policy does not reflect the contractual conditions of the employment… as it goes beyond conduct that could be regarded as involving damage to the bank’s reputation.
• That the policy extends the scope of obligations of good faith and loyalty.
• That the terms and conditions of the employment in the policy are reasonable.
• The policy misrepresents workplace rights.

“A conversation about the colour of the tea cups at the workplace… would constitute a breach of the policy as it is currently worded,” the FSU says.

But legal expert Peter Vitale says while the bank does have a legitimate position in that it needs to be aware of any damaging content on the internet, the policy itself is quite broad and could be open to misinterpretation.

“The policy is certainly comprehensive. I’ve no doubt the authors have endeavoured to create something as broad as possible to protect the interests of the bank.”

“Starting from the proposition that the bank is trying to protect its legitimate interest and not impinge in the private lives of its employees… to that extent I believe the policy could stand to have some better definitions.”

Vitale says businesses adopting social media policies need to make sure they are clear as possible, saying the CBA document may go further than simply protecting the company’s interests.

“There is certainly a common law for a duty of all employees to protect the interests of their employers. Theoretically, you may argue that duty extends to this kind of situation,” Vitale says.

But as for forcing any employee to have that comment deleted from their Facebook account, especially if it is made by a third party, Vitale says he is not sure if it can be done.

“No, I don’t think so. There is a legitimate concern there that you are exposing employees to conditions beyond employment. There are situations where those comments may have something to do with being in a union, and so on.”

Vitale also points out the policy itself cannot necessarily be policed very effectively.

“How is the bank ever going to know about this? They cannot examine the state of mind of one of its employees to see if they have knowledge of a third party saying something about the bank.”

“Never say never, but seems as if the potential to police this policy is indeed quite remote.”

The policy itself addresses a number of issues relating to social networking remaining private. The CBA points out that although comments made on these network are intended to stay within a network of friends, they nevertheless can end up in the public domain.

“For example, online content may inadvertently be viewed or accessed by your colleagues, the media or customers. Inappropriate content… may adversely affect the Group’s brand image and customer expectations as well as your own reputation.”

Vitale says these points are all valid, but also says “the union is right to the extent that the policy is extremely broad and it could potentially focus a bit more on identifying the interests of the bank”.

He recommends other businesses adopt social media policies with clear examples, so they are not misjudged by employees.

The FSU has said in a statement the policy will need to be amended, and that it should be suspended until its concerns are addressed.