Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer
An anonymous reader writes with a story out of New Zealand: "Gina Kensington was sacked by Air New Zealand earlier this year following a dispute over sick leave she took to care for her sister. She said she did not misuse sick leave, and went to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) seeking reinstatement. Air New Zealand responded by demanding to see her Facebook and bank details. Kensington refused, saying it did not have that information when it dismissed her and that 'it is well accepted in New Zealand there are general and legal privacy expectations about people's personal and financial information.'"
At least in the U.S., Facebook isn't keen on employers getting access to employees' Facebook account details.
What is surprising here us the court is making a summary judgement as to who is guilty until the prove their innocence. The unbelievable stretch in that allowing the airline access to information they didn't have in making their judgement to fire someone, as now somehow being proof of validity for firing them, is shockingly biased towards the airline and against the individual ie. we didn't know that but that's the reason why we sacked them. All that was required and should have been allowed was the companies policy regarding sick leave and the evidence obtained by the company to determine that she broke that policy, no further court ordered investigation should have been allowed.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"That's fine. However, I suspect the company has ulterior motives behind this decision; therefore I would like to have all emails by the director and finance departments to go through with a lawyer and an accountant to prove their motives. If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't object, and it's only fair since you believe handing over passwords and examining *MY* private communications with any party to be fair play. I look forward to receiving the company emails. Regards."
Ha!
What if... What if ... What if...
In an alternate universe where certain facts are known for certain, then sure there may be a problem. Over here, we can make up whatever stories we want about these alternate universes, but they don't affect us.
If the coworker takes off at a critical time without notice (did that actually happen?), then the job will be poorly done and you should raise the issue to management. Point out that the department was understaffed, and it's management's responsibility to have the right talent in-house at the right time.
Or, you take home extra pay pulling overtime picking up the slack, which costs management more than regular time, so they will eventually notice.
Or, you refuse unpaid overtime or have previous commitments that you cannot break and let your boss know this. If your boss can force you to come in to work even though you've got Laker's tickets, find another job.
You shouldn't particularly care if coworkers take time off or not - care about getting the job done on time, under budget, and at good quality. If you can't do this, care about whether it's your fault. Don't let your boss put unreasonable demands on you - that will only shift the blame to you when you can't pull off a miracle. Let them know about problems as they arise, and don't accept blame for things you can't control.
Holding yourself to a high standard of professionalism will work out better in the long run than putting "staying employed" ahead of everything else in your life. It may cost you in the immediate short-term, but the total returns over time far outweigh the immediate costs.
Oh, there's plenty of details of my personal life online. My charity work. My breakthroughs in security research. The various projects of my spare time.
Huh? No, they have very little to do with reality. And should a recruiter ever ask whether they are, I will answer truthfully. But to ask that, they'd first of all have to admit that they were trying to snoop on me with online means, which they never will.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
She is the one filing a complaint.
http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/bring-a-wrongful-dismissal-claim-against-your-employer-xidp392272.html
http://www.era.govt.nz/
Are you serious?
She is just seeking reinstatement. They sacked her from her job claiming she has abused sick leave. The proof is on the employer and it should not require the person's privacy to be ruined for that.
So she goes whining to daddy government.
Yes, clearly 'daddy government' should only serve and protect the interests of their real masters, the employers. It would be an outrageous attack on liberty for them to protect the legal rights of lowly serf-workers.
So it sounds like there is more to the story than what we're told. Perhaps she had a cushy job doing nothing, and getting paid a very good amount? People will fight to keep that. But companies will fight against it, because it's wastage.
Or maybe her boss made sexual advances to her, which she refused? But companies will fight against it, because it's not sexy
Or she considers it incredibly unfair that she was dismissed from a job she enjoyed, and is not willing to simply walk away and let them get away with it. Companies will fight against it, because it costs them money.
Or she's an undercover MI6 advisor, and being in that company is a critical part of her cover? Or she left a box of Tic Tacs in her office desk, and wanted to go back to get them? Companies will fight against it, because Bond rarely does his job without something getting blown to pieces.
Be honest. Don't go down the "perhaps there's more to this..." route to add some semblance of legitimacy to your patently self-serving speculation. It'd be less disingenuous if you simply came out and said that you feel she is doing this because of x. I agree, there may be more to this, so what will I do? I'll research it, and maybe I'll find some additional background for this story. What I won't do is to pull stuff out of my arse.
-- Using the preview button since 2005