I think it depends on both the organization and the individuals. My university has an 8 page policy, basically stating the same policies we follow at the insitution are still in effect on social media. It also includes not posting disparaging remarks about the University, staff, protecting patient privacy, etc. I see nothing wrong with this policy. If an employee has a problem, there are private channels available in every company (supervisor, HR) for resolution. If not, and the company stomps on employee rights, an employee has the right to quit... or sue if it's that flaggrant.

Individuals should assume anything the post can/will be copied & pasted. If an employee makes a disparaging public remark about their employer, co-worker, boss, customers - they should expect consequences. The Applebee's scenario is a good example (waitress & pastor who was a customer).

If this is not the direction of protecting employee rights - please clarify.

Thanks for your feedback Margie. Yes I agree it does depend on the type of organisation and what their social media policies permit them to do online (and offline). I think there is a disconnect between what employees think is acceptable to post online to that of what an employer thinks is acceptable which I consider needs to be made more specific and apparent in social media policies or employment contracts. We have laws that regulate the employment relationship as well as implied contractual terms to maintain mutual trust in the employment relationship, but I think to highlight these mutual obligations, there should be guidance provided by industry groups/ regulators to assist employers in drafting social media policies which define appropriate online behaviour, reinforced with training so there is a mutual understanding of what if acceptable.

From my research so far, some employees consider that what they post online is private, is out of work time and have a right to express an opinion as they are a citizen first before their job title. What they don't consider is that what they say can be related to their work and if quite serious, they are dismissed which leads to litigation. What is not clear in Australia, is the extent to which a post is 'damaging (and what tests are applied)' to an employer's reputation. Alternatively, how far can an employer go to reveal the employee's identity (and take action) when the employee posts under a pseudonym with no reference at all to their work in order to participate in online discussions in which their opinion may not align with views or interests of their employer? Preserving employee free speech and privacy (which we do not have a constitutional right here, so we need to protect the very little we do have) and preserving business legal interests is a delicate balance to strike, so to ensure employees/employers are on the same page, I think policy guidelines, in some industries at least, need to be more comprehensive. For example, being too broad 'you will not engage in social media conduct that damages the reputation of this company' or too restrictive, 'you will not refer to or mention the company name in private social media posts.'

You are correct about the disconnect. What you are describing reflects the newness of this media, which has not been defined legislatively. Over time, there will be cases litigated that set precedence.

Great question!

Thank you for the link Ahmed. Yes ownership of social media contacts is a relevant legal issue. This is a legal grey area. I see the issue is unresolved in US case law and have seen that the law of agency and confidential information has been used in the UK to address this issue.  So far in my research, I think that a social media policy should contain a restraint of trade clause and non-solicitation clause re the contacts made during the employment relationship. Why? Because an employee owns their contacts made via LinkedIn etc, not the employer, and employees can easily export them. There is goodwill in those business contacts however, so to protect this goodwill, a non solicitation clause (say for 6 months) should be an appropriate time frame for which former employees should refrain from contacting those business contacts. Just my thoughts in an attempt to balance these interests at this stage. Cheers! Thanks again for your input!