Email blues

Photo / Kenny Rodger.

Employees getting into trouble with email is the subject of this week's blog. Surprisingly it still seems to happen frequently, even though email has been around a lot longer than things like Facebook.

In one recent case, Ms Chia Cheng claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed from her role as a project manager by Base Projects Limited (BPL). On the morning of the alleged dismissal Ms Cheng had what she called an "email war" with her manager, Mr David Lokes.

His emails seeking an explanation for her use of a company credit card were met with a response that these were "b-llsh-t". After a further exchange she replied telling him to stop sending her "endless emails", and to "get over it".

She then forwarded copies of his emails to friends working for other employers, including at least one customer of BPL. In one she said he was "such a f-wit ... so annoying" and in another described their exchanges as "hilarious".

She refused to discuss the issue with Mr Lokes, and he told her to "go home and think about your attitude". She claimed he also said to her: "I'm terminating your contract", but the Employment Relations Authority did not believe her. The Authority said she had not been dismissed. She was however suspended, and this was not justified, as Mr Lokes first should have raised the prospect of suspension with her and the terms on which it would occur. The Authority did not award her any compensation, however, on account of her contribution to the situation.

In another case, Ms Vicki Walker was dismissed from her employment as a Financial Controller by ProCare Health Ltd, which said this was based on an incompatibility issue. Case law recognises that where there is a major personality conflict, for which the employee concerned is substantially responsible, dismissal may be justified.

Part of the issue related to the tone of Ms Walker's emails to her team - using capitals, bold and red font, which some employees found confrontational. ProCare pointed out perceived deficiencies to Ms Walker, including the email issue. She conceded some emails could have been better worded but pointed out there was no email "etiquette guide".

The company resisted her attempts to seek information about the complaints, and did not investigate them, believing this would escalate tensions further. Instead they said they were considering termination for incompatibility - and after further correspondence, they did exactly that.

The Authority said it was not unreasonable of her to want the complaints investigated, rather than being judged to be in the wrong simply because she had been complained about. The dismissal was therefore unjustified. Ms Walker was awarded $3,000 in lost wages, and $11,500 compensation for hurt and humiliation.

The facts in these two cases are starkly contrasting. Emailing your mates and describing your manager as a "f-wit" is hardly likely to endear you to the Employment Relations Authority. However, simply using an abrupt tone, or emphasising content by using bold, capitals or red font, might be annoying but is hardly job-losing stuff. It looks like employees' use of email and the internet will continue to throw up interesting cases for the courts to chew over.

 

Greg Cain

 

Greg Cain is an employment lawyer at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts.