Qantas Employee Censorship
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 5th Dimension
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Employee Censorship
Are you a social networker?
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be an effective form of communication for you, your friends and family around the world. It’s also a very public way of communicating, which is why it’s important to remember that what you publish on social networking sites can be seen by many and is treated as public information that’s not necessarily private or confidential.
Employees are bound to protect commercial in-confidence information and to demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time. When off duty you still represent Qantas and you need to be mindful that information published online, especially negative information about Qantas, may be in conflict with the Qantas Standards of Conduct Policy and your obligations as an employee. If you’re not sure whether what you’re posting is appropriate, then err on the side of caution, in other words, “If in doubt, leave it out.”
When communicating via social networking sites, remember you’re not an official spokesperson for Qantas and your views do not necessarily reflect those of Qantas.
To protect you and Qantas, the transmission of important information needs to be reserved exclusively for approved Qantas-approved, official communication channels.
This is a direction from qantas managment regarding employee posts on Facebook.
How enforcable would company policy be in a court of law?
Just because something is written in a public forum that allegedly contravenes company policy is it indeed automatically deemed illegal.?
Is this illegal censorship and does it cut across individual rights of discussion?
From a Qantas perspective you are an employee 24 hours a day and as such Qantas is entitled to dictate your behaviour 24 hours a day.
Who the hell do they think they are ?
"To protect you".......from whom ? Your employer presumably ?
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be an effective form of communication for you, your friends and family around the world. It’s also a very public way of communicating, which is why it’s important to remember that what you publish on social networking sites can be seen by many and is treated as public information that’s not necessarily private or confidential.
Employees are bound to protect commercial in-confidence information and to demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time. When off duty you still represent Qantas and you need to be mindful that information published online, especially negative information about Qantas, may be in conflict with the Qantas Standards of Conduct Policy and your obligations as an employee. If you’re not sure whether what you’re posting is appropriate, then err on the side of caution, in other words, “If in doubt, leave it out.”
When communicating via social networking sites, remember you’re not an official spokesperson for Qantas and your views do not necessarily reflect those of Qantas.
To protect you and Qantas, the transmission of important information needs to be reserved exclusively for approved Qantas-approved, official communication channels.
This is a direction from qantas managment regarding employee posts on Facebook.
How enforcable would company policy be in a court of law?
Just because something is written in a public forum that allegedly contravenes company policy is it indeed automatically deemed illegal.?
Is this illegal censorship and does it cut across individual rights of discussion?
From a Qantas perspective you are an employee 24 hours a day and as such Qantas is entitled to dictate your behaviour 24 hours a day.
Who the hell do they think they are ?
"To protect you".......from whom ? Your employer presumably ?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fishers.ghost,
I'm not sure of the legalities from a common law perspective. However, being reasonably familiar with the QF, its subsidiaries, (and others) contracts of employment - I suggest you may indeed face disciplinary action up to, and including dismissal, should you release any "commercial-in-confidence" information (or, it appears, post anything derogatory about your employer).
It's clearly written in your contract..... I don't know how successful you would be fighting an unfair dismissal case after the fact.
Through my contacts, I am aware of at least three employee of QF (and subsidiaries), and one from VB who have been disciplined of late. One of which was terminated.
It comes back to what we Mods have advised time and time again: Don't post anything (even anonymously), unless you are prepared to back it up with facts in court. Now it appears you also need to consider the consequences you may face with your employer, should they deem you to be in breach of your employment contract. Remember, with this type of medium you are broadcasting to the world.
Regards from TID.
I'm not sure of the legalities from a common law perspective. However, being reasonably familiar with the QF, its subsidiaries, (and others) contracts of employment - I suggest you may indeed face disciplinary action up to, and including dismissal, should you release any "commercial-in-confidence" information (or, it appears, post anything derogatory about your employer).
It's clearly written in your contract..... I don't know how successful you would be fighting an unfair dismissal case after the fact.
Through my contacts, I am aware of at least three employee of QF (and subsidiaries), and one from VB who have been disciplined of late. One of which was terminated.
It comes back to what we Mods have advised time and time again: Don't post anything (even anonymously), unless you are prepared to back it up with facts in court. Now it appears you also need to consider the consequences you may face with your employer, should they deem you to be in breach of your employment contract. Remember, with this type of medium you are broadcasting to the world.
Regards from TID.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Employees Allowed an Opinion ?
Can you for example have two opinions?
1.Qantas as a collective of employees is amazing
2.Qantas managment on the other hand are ****e
While pouring scorn on a particular manager are you then guilty of denigrating Qantas.?
Corporately sensitive information in the aviation industry is sensitive for about a minute before it becomes public knowledge ...aircraft deployment..new routes.....uniforms...new livery....etc.
Qantas in particular uses corporate policy to silence employee criticism of management.It is all part of the fear and intimidation style used by the executive and initiated by Scrotum Face.
Qantas as an entity is praiseworthy.Its management is not.Anyone in the Qantas legal department will tell you that litigation initiated by employees against management is one of the highest of any corporation in Australia.
Then again perhaps they wont...because it may be deemed corporately sensitive
All this is circumspect and opinion only ....not based on any verifiable fact(s)
Information can be portrayed as opinion or speculation without legal recourse.
If it portrayed as fact....well then....thats another matter entirely...but thats purely speculation of course
1.Qantas as a collective of employees is amazing
2.Qantas managment on the other hand are ****e
While pouring scorn on a particular manager are you then guilty of denigrating Qantas.?
Corporately sensitive information in the aviation industry is sensitive for about a minute before it becomes public knowledge ...aircraft deployment..new routes.....uniforms...new livery....etc.
Qantas in particular uses corporate policy to silence employee criticism of management.It is all part of the fear and intimidation style used by the executive and initiated by Scrotum Face.
Qantas as an entity is praiseworthy.Its management is not.Anyone in the Qantas legal department will tell you that litigation initiated by employees against management is one of the highest of any corporation in Australia.
Then again perhaps they wont...because it may be deemed corporately sensitive
All this is circumspect and opinion only ....not based on any verifiable fact(s)
Information can be portrayed as opinion or speculation without legal recourse.
If it portrayed as fact....well then....thats another matter entirely...but thats purely speculation of course
Last edited by DEFCON4; 14th May 2010 at 01:30.
Anyone in the Qantas legal department will tell you that litigation initiated by employees against mangement is the highest of any corporation in australia
As a listed entity, QF has every right to insist on a proper communications policy, just as it can determine, for example, a dress code for employees.If you don't like QF's terms of employment, you have a choice - exercise it and move on.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employees under Pressure = Productivity Increase ?
There was a theory in some business schools that if you keep an employee under pressure that employee will be more productive.That theory fell into disrepute around ten years ago.
Some employers have not caught up with current thinking.Fear and presssure ultimately lead to employee disengagement.A high level of disengagement can actually damage a company and its brand.Qantas is a perfect example.
Engaging your employees in the business actually leadf to productivity increases at zero cost to he company
Company policy,dress codes and censorship can/and are used as threats against employees.
How much does it cost for an employer to prosecute one of its employees and what is the benefit of doing so?It adds nothing to the company's bottom line but it does send a (negative)message to the rest of the workforce.
This leads to further disengagement and loss of productivity.This does affect the company's bottom line.The whole process is self defeating.
Happy engaged employees do not generally intentionally breach company
policy.
As for the old cliche "if you dont like it leave" it is generally irrelevant.Most disengaged employees stay in the hope that they can "stick it" to management further exacerbating the problem
Some employers have not caught up with current thinking.Fear and presssure ultimately lead to employee disengagement.A high level of disengagement can actually damage a company and its brand.Qantas is a perfect example.
Engaging your employees in the business actually leadf to productivity increases at zero cost to he company
Company policy,dress codes and censorship can/and are used as threats against employees.
How much does it cost for an employer to prosecute one of its employees and what is the benefit of doing so?It adds nothing to the company's bottom line but it does send a (negative)message to the rest of the workforce.
This leads to further disengagement and loss of productivity.This does affect the company's bottom line.The whole process is self defeating.
Happy engaged employees do not generally intentionally breach company
policy.
As for the old cliche "if you dont like it leave" it is generally irrelevant.Most disengaged employees stay in the hope that they can "stick it" to management further exacerbating the problem
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Us Them They We
At Qantas when we talked about the company it used to be we and us.
Thanks to company policy/censorship it is now them and they.
I know which I preferred
Thanks to company policy/censorship it is now them and they.
I know which I preferred
When off duty you still represent Qantas
For example the Prime Minister can do certain things in the capacity as Prime Minister, the local member, or as a private citizen.
He is still the PM but not acting in that capacity.
Same with QF. If you are in uniform, or on company business you are acting as an employee of the company, if I am on holidays or on a RDO I am acting as a private citizen so QF cannot have any say over what I do.
What legal grounds do QF have to control your personal opinion?
Say you flew on a competing carrier and Twittered that the competing carrier service was far and away better than QF's are QF going to haul you over the coals?
Employees are bound to protect commercial in-confidence information and to demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Cancelled
During Christmas a QF consultant stood in for an absent manager.
The first thing she did was instruct CC not to adorn their uniform with tinsel or wear any type of christmas hat.
It was against company policy.The hats and tinsel did not comply
That edict lasted about twenty minutes before it was taken down
The first thing she did was instruct CC not to adorn their uniform with tinsel or wear any type of christmas hat.
It was against company policy.The hats and tinsel did not comply
That edict lasted about twenty minutes before it was taken down
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...if I am on holidays or on a RDO I am acting as a private citizen so QF cannot have any say over what I do.
It's not so much a question of what you do, but what you publish. Posting on the internet is legally considered publishing. If you wrote and published a book slagging off Qantas while an employee, I assume they'd be terminating your employment. Tweeting etc is legally the same concept, particularly if you are identifiable by name and therefore as an employee. It's certainly not like criticising them in a private letter to an individual, although many people seem to see Tweets / Facebook in this way.
Qantas has no say over what you do in that they can't stop you doing it, but they can choose to dismiss you if you breach the terms of your employment. You could maybe chase an unfair dismissal claim based on the 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' clause in the Fair Work Act (s385)(b) but I don't know how you'd go.
From what I can see, your only legislated workplace rights involving complaints about the company are the right to complain "to a person or body having the capacity under a workplace law to seek compliance with that law or a workplace instrument;" (s341(1)(c).
If you have agreed to abide by a code of conduct as a condition of employment, your employment is conditional on abiding by that code of conduct. I haven't read the Qantas Standards of Conduct policy referred to above, but I imagine it has a clause about not publishing nasty things about the company, whether on or off duty? Most of them do. Legally, Qantas is not trying to silence you as such, but excercizing their right to dismiss you for conduct breaching their code. No-one has a 'right' to be employed by a particular organization, particularly if they have breached an agreed term of employment.
If they considered your publication defamatory they could press charges, but otherwise once you were dismissed there wouldn't be anything they could do to silence you.
The Act does not seem to specify rules for codes of conduct, but my guess would be that unless a requirement is discriminatory, unlawful or harsh/unjust/unreasonable, an employer can specify pretty much anything they choose. At the end of the day, being a bastard to work for is not in itself unlawful.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 14th May 2010 at 04:25. Reason: weird brand substitution for the Tweet provider
Neville Somebody:
If your Facebook page tells the world you are a Qantas pilot and displays lovely photos of you in the cockpit, etc. etc.
Then you can expect trouble if you post anything derogatory or confidential.
You can also expect trouble if you join Facebook groups like :
"On a scale from Zero to Brendan Favola, how drunk are you?" or
"Society for the protection of Swedish lingerie models".
Of course if you can't be identified as an employee of Qantas, that's is, I think , a different matter, but why you would be telling an employer to their face that they are not your ideal is anyones guess.
When off duty you still represent Qantas
How does that work?? Is there any legal grounds for such a claim??
How does that work?? Is there any legal grounds for such a claim??
Then you can expect trouble if you post anything derogatory or confidential.
You can also expect trouble if you join Facebook groups like :
"On a scale from Zero to Brendan Favola, how drunk are you?" or
"Society for the protection of Swedish lingerie models".
Of course if you can't be identified as an employee of Qantas, that's is, I think , a different matter, but why you would be telling an employer to their face that they are not your ideal is anyones guess.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology and What is/isnt Legal
Most work contracts were drawn up when Facebook ,twitter and the internet didnt exist.In some cases work contract clauses relating to conduct couldn't have related to the internet but are being applied to it by over officious employers.
The law is lagging way behind technology.
Test cases are needed.
Any volunteers ?
The law is lagging way behind technology.
Test cases are needed.
Any volunteers ?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you could always argue that whatever defamatory slur you published on the internet was merely copied from that which was published on the toilet walls of the QANTAS sim centre at Mascot. Which was clearly written to "demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time". Of course, you may run into legal problems regarding publishing rights. QANTAS may also take you to court over royalties etc as QANTAS clearly own the toilet walls on which the slur was originally published. Of course you could circumvent this by finding the identity of the original said publisher, which is unlikely. Or you could sign your own name next to the ranting slurs on the toilet walls, of which there are many, thus claiming them as your own...... But that would just be insane.
I hope that helps.
I hope that helps.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: King country
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas and The Borg
As an outsider with friends who work for Qantas it appears to be a very intrusive employer.
Have a second job?Qantas wants to know.
Critical of the Corporation ?Your arse is grass
Sick leave.?You are called at home.
Talk about paranoia.
It would appear resistance is futile.
Is any of this legal ?.To an outsider its more like harrassment and persecution
Have a second job?Qantas wants to know.
Critical of the Corporation ?Your arse is grass
Sick leave.?You are called at home.
Talk about paranoia.
It would appear resistance is futile.
Is any of this legal ?.To an outsider its more like harrassment and persecution
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the OP
Sounds like a bit of gratuitous Qantas bashing 
"Codes of conduct" including restrictions on people from postings on websites are nothing new, nor are they limited to airlines, or Qantas.
IIRC, there were a group of Virgin UK flight attendants that were sacked last year due to their facebook postings.
re: Tweets: You may want to ask Catherine Deveney (Columnist for "The Age") about whether inappropriate tweets can get you sacked. She was sacked just over a week ago for her twitter postings re: the Logies.
The sad thing is, is that people don't apply common sense to their internet postings, and corporations are forced to impose such policies.
As Sunfish said, if you publicly identify yourself as an employee of a company, and then slag off said company, you can expect a "Please explain".
When I was in Iraq, we had soldiers return from patrols, and then post video clips of their patrols on Youtube/Myspace!
DIVOSH!
"Codes of conduct" including restrictions on people from postings on websites are nothing new, nor are they limited to airlines, or Qantas.
IIRC, there were a group of Virgin UK flight attendants that were sacked last year due to their facebook postings.
re: Tweets: You may want to ask Catherine Deveney (Columnist for "The Age") about whether inappropriate tweets can get you sacked. She was sacked just over a week ago for her twitter postings re: the Logies.
The sad thing is, is that people don't apply common sense to their internet postings, and corporations are forced to impose such policies.
As Sunfish said, if you publicly identify yourself as an employee of a company, and then slag off said company, you can expect a "Please explain".
When I was in Iraq, we had soldiers return from patrols, and then post video clips of their patrols on Youtube/Myspace!
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PNG
Age: 53
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry if my lack of technical savy cause any offence, however it would seem to me that the obvious solution to this problem would be to ensure that you are not identifiable to the company when you are the process of slagging them off - simple!!