QUICK! – Three Dots > More Tools > Clear Browsing Data

National law firm Weightmans’ dismissal of a facilities assistant with over twenty years service was deemed fair by an Employment Tribunal, where the employees non-business related internet use was found to be ‘substantial’ following an internal investigation. The search activity was considered to be gross misconduct by the employer, as the substantial internet usage demonstrated ‘contempt for the trust placed’ in the employee. The allegation was also joined with further instances of misconduct; namely her young family being in the office unsupervised and directing abusive language towards another colleague in the workplace. The employee described her search history as ‘brief’, however data produced at the tribunal showed hundreds of non-work related entries over the month of October 2019.

In a connected world, this case raises questions of how to handle use of the internet in the workplace and whether surfing the web could cause a distraction capable of reducing productivity, colleague engagement or harbour opportunities for employee misconduct. The obvious extremity is an employee tempted to view pornographic materials at work that if left uncovered may lead to a hostile environment and susceptibility to sexual harassment claims by colleagues against the employer.  Other activities are also particularly undesirable and inappropriate in the workplace such as betting, job searching, shopping and chat functions.

There are wide and varied IT systems available that can restrict and block access to certain types of websites;  however it is questionable where the line can be drawn on what is, or isn’t censored and this may be construed as an action of mistrust by the employer against the employee. It is a difficult judgement call and should be balanced against other expectations of colleagues on-line, such as responding to emails out of hours or other tasks. Employers engaging in procedures of restriction and monitoring of employees online would do well to outline exactly what behaviour is or isn’t expected of them and to educate employees on fair and acceptable internet usage on a regular basis.  It may not be necessary to forbid all personal use in the pursuit of a happy balance that suits all parties and assumes professionalism on the part of the employee.

A well constructed internet policy can set out the terms of personal use without criminalising the employee if written from a position of empowerment, professional confidence and trust. Including examples of misuse may be helpful to avoid confusion coupled with continuous communication and implementation of the policy through line managers. These managers should be trained to identify and intercept repeat violations and move an employee through a progressive disciplinary process in the event of misconduct. Pro-active management such as this may just have prevented the escalation of the situation detailed in the ET case study.

The internet has the potential to distract an employee from their duties, but it should be noted that an employee turning to such activity may be a symptom of lack of engagement, detachment from the business or demotivation; issues that could be identified and explored in performance reviews or colleague one-to-ones.