The Internet, through social media, blogs and websites has opened up a new method of communication to the world that can be used for good but quite often, in my humble opinion, is used in a very negative manner.
It seems that it’s permissible to post anything crossing someone’s mind – any so called “truth” they’ve learned – and unfortunately this leads to a lot of hate virally infecting the web. Permissible is not necessarily “legal” but the lines are obscure. This is not the case in labor law as we will learn from the next court decision by the Honorable Judge Mr. Ayial Avrahami from the Labor Law court in Jerusalem.
The plaintiff (Mrs. Liran) filed a claim against the defendants (Pelephone) for compensation according to The Defamation Law (“Hok Issur Lashon Hara”). In this case the plaintiff worked as a customer service person until fired by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that immediately after being fired, the defendant told several or her colleagues at work that she was fired because of her poor work quality, disregard for roles, and inappropriate attitude toward customers. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was the one who had hurt the plaintiff’s interest by her wrong behavior including deliberately not coming to work or being late, forcing the defendants to fill her place with another service person.
The Decision:
The Labor Tribunal rejected the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant and fined her a total of 8,000 shekels (to be paid to the defendant).
The Rationale of the Decision:
Out of responsibility to the rest of the team’s workers it was the employer’s right and obligation to let the team know about the case and explain why the plaintiff was fired. Otherwise they (other workers on the team) might have developed unrest and fear in their hearts. It is not enough to specify the fact that a person was fired, but it is important to explain why!
It is important to “educate” others, teaching them not to make the same mistakes made by the person fired for misconduct. It is in everyone’s best interest for the public to receive better service and co-workers to be sure the employer had a good reason to fire a member of the team – not based on “personal vendetta” but on the best interest of everyone.
Libel yes but not by law:
The Judge explained in his decision that the way the plaintiff told others about the case was indeed considered “libel” but in spite of that, according to the law it was not libel. What is the difference?
In order to be entitled to any compensation for been libeled one must prove that the law was breached and in this case the law wasn’t breached.
In this case, making the reasons for the firing public, was only expressing an opinion on the conduct of the plaintiff and her character. In this case, by law it was a justified act and as the Judge wrote, it was an obligation for the defendant and therefore the law wasn’t breached.
A personal Touch:
It is common to see employees being fired and immediately suing the employer for libel. It is something lawyers use as a “defense”. It will take time but a balance will be found between the right of the employer to fire a bad worker and the right of the employee to have his good name kept intact.
Unfortunately it is true that employers can be very rough and careless about not hurting an employees’ name, especially when the real cause of the dismissal of that employee was his/her acting against the employer or causing him damages.
One has to take responsibility for his acts. A salary is paid for work done and not only to be present at the workplace as many wrongly think.
