ie8 fix

Sacked Apple employee loses appeal over negative Facebook comments

By | December 1, 2011, 8:11am PST

Summary: An Apple UK employee has failed in his appeal to overturn his dismissal from the company, after a series of critical Facebook comments got him fired.

A former Apple employee has lost his appeal against the Cupertino giant, after he was sacked from his job at a UK retail store, after posting a series of critical remarks about the company on Facebook.

Samuel Crisp was fired last month after posting comments on the social networking site, and took the computing giant to an employment tribunal. Claiming that the negative posts were set to ‘private’ on the social networking site, he was let go for “gross misconduct”.

His appeal failed and will not be allowed to return to the store as an employee, with the tribunal ruling that Apple was being within its rights to let the hapless employee go.


(Source: Flickr, CC)

In one case, he was said to have referenced the company’s tagline after Apple began to sell The Beatles tracks on music platform iTunes, reading: “Tomorrow is just another day which you’ll never forget”. He responded: “Tomorrow’s just another day that hopefully I will forget”.

He then posted various angry tirades about his ‘Jesusphone’, thought to be his iPhone, which included strong language and other unbroadcastable material.

With the possibility of transferring to a U.S.-based store, he became disillusioned with his work. A supposed ‘friend’ of his on Facebook showed the post to the store manager, who then suspended Crisp.

Apple has a clear social media policy, which barred critical remarks of the company on social media sites, even if the post was set to private and within a small group of friends. The company takes its brand and image seriously to this point, and its employees on the whole reflect those values well.

Just walk in to any Apple store, and it quickly becomes apparent.

The tribunal sided with Apple, stating: “We take into account their position that the Facebook posts were not truly private and could in fact have been forwarded very easily with the claimant having no control over this process”.

Many have been caught out by unexpected firings as a result of negative tweets or Facebook comments. Earlier this year, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board has a number of cases where employees were fired through social networking sites.

An earlier settlement led to a ruling where their employers could not discipline U.S. workers over content they post on social media sites. In the UK, however, the results from the tribunal appear to show the complete opposite.

The lesson here? Choose your Facebook friends carefully, and beware of hidden company social media policies.

Apple did not respond for comment.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit. Details of which are restricted, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

46
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

no freedom of speech . . .
pikeman666@... 2nd Dec
The UK has incredibly liberal libel laws that will result in lawsuits over public defamation of any sort. If Apple thought they could have squeezed a drop of blood out of this rock he'd have been fired AND sued.
The guy is a dolt; he should have known better.
And if he was indeed this disgruntled he must have been a poor employee to boot.
0 Votes
+ -
This was already discussed
dderss Updated - 1st Dec
That employee personally and voluntarily signed the papers that clearly state the rules and policies.

There are cases when that employee could break his commitments, and these are clearly written in laws. However, it was not the case this time.

So he broke his promise with no legal basis, thus committing despicable act of dishonesty. Classless behaviour that bears no dignity.
@dderss

Really? You really think that an employer should have any right to know what you communicate in your private moments? I think it is absolutely despicable that they were allowed to fire him, although the UK has always been much more of a "Big Brother" country.

In most countries if you have signed an agreement that isn't legal, than it doesn't matter if you signed it. In this case the tribunal decided that Apple was within their rights but I wonder if he'll appeal the decision.

It is truly disgusting that employers think they should have any say in people's private lives. A sad, sad day.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
use_what_works_4_U 1st Dec
@Dodgson1832
"...an employer should have any right to know what you communicate in your private moments..."

Except that Apple didn't seek this information out. They never exerted any right to know anything. A private individual who was part of the correspondence pro-actively gave the information to Apple. That individual has the right to share that information and this is exactly why Apple's policies exist. Had that person decided to share the post to their wall instead of taking it to a manager, then the information is no longer private.

If the "hapless employee" wanted to rant about their employer, then they should have done it over the phone, in person, or even by email. Any of those methods have legal expectations of privacy. Facebook simply does not.

I no longer work for Apple, but if I publicly denigrated my current employer they would also fire me. This isn't unusual and it's been going on for decades, if not longer.
@Dodgson1832 Where the hell have you been? Ever heard the phrase, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? I suggest you learn it and take it to heart. You have certain freedoms and one of them is to do stupid things. Announcing on Facebook that your job sucks so bad that you are already hoping you'll forget tomorrow before it's even happened tells me this person really doesn't want to work there. It tells the employer the same thing. It isn't rocket science.
@Dodgson1832 "Really? You really think that an employer should have any right to know what you communicate in your private moments?"

That's the point, posting on a social media site is not private, in any way, shape, or form.
@Dodgson1832

Agreed...this is all the more reason not to have facebook or social network sites. Nobody should be able to tell you your coments outside of work are wrong and fire you for it! If it doesn't occur at work it should be off the record.
@Dodgson1832

The company shouldn't be able to control you. But they don't have the keep you either. You mention "Big Brother" then say that it was despicable that the company "were allowed" to fire him.

Freedom doesn't mean you have a right to say or do anything, Champ. You can say what you want, but I don't have to listen.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dodgson1832 the UK is indeed not big brother as you suggest. How many tirades do we hear about unions and bad talent being protected. Now in this case bad talent was released and your are complaining that big brother didn't step in? Make up your mind people.
@dderss

This story actually made me feel better about HP. This isn't about rights and laws. This is about a company being so obsessed with it's image that it actively suppresses criticism from any source. Any perspective customer should look askance at any company that acts in such a manner.
@tkejlboom

"Actively suppresses criticism from any source"? Really? If they did so, you and your fellow anti-Apple fanboys would probably be swinging from gibbets right now. Any company that did NOT have a policy that discouraged employees airing dirty laundry out in public, especially through media that could be traced back to those same employees, would be shirking its duty to its stockholders. There is a time and place for such things, but Facebook isn't it.

Now if the employee were blowing the whistle on criminal activity, he should be protected by whistleblower laws as a matter of public interest. But if he's just a whiny SOB, he should be shown the door.
@ssaha, apparently, you have not seen the NUMEROUS lawsuits that Apple has tried to file overseas against people trying to get damages for slander and libel, in cases where people were only being honest about how Apple treated them or how their product performed.
@dderss

Lawsuit coming! Seriously, dderss, even if you SIGN AN AGREEMENT LIKE THAT, the agreements should be declared illegal on their face as a violation of your privacy and Fourth Amendment rights (there are comparable rights overseas).

Companies need to stop requiring these things and someone needs to have the BALLS to take these companies to court and have a judge declare these things illegal, as they should be.

It's comparable to, if I worked for the police, them trying to fire me for saying that I believe that the drug laws should be scrapped and all drugs should be made legal.
0 Votes
+ -
Facebook is considered a public forum
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 2nd Dec
@Lerianis10, much like this. The 4th amendment doesn't apply. If he truly wanted it to be private, he should have written it in journal he keeps under his bed, or talked to his therapist, mother, or whoever. Anytime one complains about their job where co-workers can read it, opens you up for termination. I don't care how bad of a day I am having at work, I certainly wouldn't let it rip on Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else. After all if the guy didn't like his job, he should have quit and found another.

It isn't just about protecting Apple's image, it is making sure that the people you employ stand behind your product, and are making your customers experience a great one. Would you buy a product from someone who is actively dumping on the company or product? If you were a customer walking into a MSFT store and the employing showing you the Xbox Kinect sat their and told you the product was terrible, and that they better buy the kids helmets and pads, you would probably walk away thinking what a cruddy product or company. Apple, MSFT, or any other company has no obligation to keep you around if you hate your job and are dumping on the company and its products.
"beware of hidden company social media policies"

What is the basis for the hidden part of this comment?
0 Votes
+ -
Ignorant blogger
use_what_works_4_U 1st Dec
@raleighthings
There is NOTHING hidden about these policies, and Apple makes you *very* aware of them during the interview process. The only way you could work for Apple and not know about them is if you actively tried to ignore them.
@macadam And indeed, if "you actively tried to ignore them" you would therefore know about them. Otherwise you couldn't be active in your ignoring of them.
0 Votes
+ -
Never thought that the paper company...
Feldwebel Wolfenstool 1st Dec
...could have fired me, years back, for complaining about forest clear-cutting, and all the waste chemicals we used to dump into the Great Lakes...
@Feldwebel Wolfenstool
Dunder Mifflin?
@Feldwebel Wolfenstool

Hit the nail on the head, Feldwebel. The fact is that NO company should have the right to dictate to people what they say on their off time AWAY from the company.

It is about time that we had a federal law passed GUARANTEEING PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, even in the private arena or on public boards.

That means NO being allowed to fire someone because of their comments on a board, unless they are slanderous or false.
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds to me like chemical dumping
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 2nd Dec
@Feldwebel Wolfenstool... would fall under Wistel-blowing. And being against clear-cutting is not the same thing as disparaging the company or product. This person was clearly just disparaging the company and product, it wasn't complaining about poor or unsafe working conditions or illegal dumping, which fall under wistleblower protections.
0 Votes
+ -
why was he so eager to get his job back?
@baggins_z Probably because he was otherwise unemployable.
@baggins_z probably because he was otherwise unemployable, and he knew it. He wanted the courts to order Apple to carry his dead weight.
"fired through social networking sites"

Really? Did employers really send termination notices through Facebook? If so, this is the first I've heard of it.
@aep528
It is a shame that this site does not have an Editor reading copy before these lousy articles are published. This one in particular is almost unreadable. The author did not get proper training or he would not make this type of mistake. However, there are others just as egregious and he does not have a clue. Sad. It seems that there should be some clear guidelines for a journalist. I would suggest that written literacy should be a requirement. How about it ZD? ZD? ZD? Hello---is anyone there? No?
We knew the outcome of this. No one really thought the employee had a chance. He talked bad about his employer, he was unhappy at his job so they had every reason to let him go. No reason to keep him around if he's not going to work to his full potential and could create more tension at the work place with his bad attitude.
@Loverock Davidson-

In the US he would have had a chance because luckily our courts uphold our right to privacy from our employers. I am appalled that anyone would think that firing someone based on these grounds is alright.
@Dodgson1832
And WHY exactly would any employer want to have an employee like that fellow working for them? When I meet employees like this fellow, I just leave the store and go some place else to shop. Bad attitudes such as his are not easily disguised. You can bet there were numerous complaints by other employees and customers.
0 Votes
+ -
...I am still amazed...
*Gman* Updated - 1st Dec
@Dodgson1832 ...that anyone can think of something posted on the Internet as "private". Just because it was not done (I am only assuming here) on company time does not mean it was private. There is a huge difference between whispering something into a friend's ear and painting a message on billboards across the world. Nothing on the Internet is private. "Marking" something as private makes it private about as much as a "Facebook friend" is a real friend.
@Dodgson1832

If he acts like that in the store, go ahead and can him. If you read his Facebook page and then fire him, please step in to stop this government. That's how I feel. I think if it was really that noticeable at work they would have already fired him.
@Dodgson1832
When you work for a company, especially in a place where you interface with the public, you are a representaive of that company.
If Apple said they won't hire people who on the weekends walk around in KKK or Nazi atire, that's thier right as as an employee, you are there to get business, not lose it.

If his facebook posts shows he not willing to be a responsible representaive of teh company, then why should the company want to keep him, have him lose them customers?

Don't forget, people own businesses, and they have rights, too.
0 Votes
+ -
Right to privacy was waived
use_what_works_4_U 1st Dec
@Dodgson1832
The right to privacy was explicitly waived by another participant in the conversation when that person brought the conversation to work. Even in the U.S. this is perfectly legal. You have a right to privacy which you can waive at any time. Anyone else in the conversation can also waive the right to privacy which is what happened here. Once you say or post something it is no longer exclusively yours. Those statements belong to you and to the person you made them to. Legally that person can share them with anyone they choose. Even spouses can freely share what you tell them to anyone they choose. They can't be compelled to do so, but nowhere has any compulsion by Apple been reported.

This person bit the hand that feeds him and it stopped feeding. Stupid move, predictable outcome.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
use_what_works_4_U 1st Dec
@Dodgson1832
His right to privacy was not violated. Another party to the conversation chose, independently, to share that conversation with their mutual employer. Even in the United States it is perfectly legal to share the content of any conversation you are part of with anyone you choose. The ONLY exception to that is where a contract or specific law prohibits it such as what exists with lawyers and physicians. Unless the anonymous Facebook friend was also the fired guy's attorney, the voluntary disclosure is perfectly legal.
@Dodgson1832

It is absolutely all right. Everything you say to another person can potentially back to haunt you. If you bad-mouth your company to a co-worker who doesn't share your opinions they have every right to complain to the company that you are creating a negative and hostile work environment. Doesn't matter if it was said in private, or off company premises. And maybe you should learn something about U.S laws: we recently had to go through the company harassment training, and yes, you can be investigated for harassment of a co-worker and disciplined even if the harassment took place outside of work.

This is another episode that shows how "social-networking" sites are a massive FAIL. All current sites require only confirmation of contact, not relationships. What they should do is require all users to agree to a form of relationship: If one person asks another person to be a "friend," the second person could then respond with "co-worker," and hopefully the first might be wary of sharing too much private information. This is how we as humans function in person-to-person conversations. I want to have the same thing online. At the least it would make grouping people into Lists and Circles easier.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dodgson1832, it isn't as if Apple went into his home, seized his laptop, or journal and found it. He posted it on Facebook, and a co-worker showed it to the supervisor.

When you send an e-mail you are not entitled to the belief that your e-mail is private. If you don't want someone to read it, don't send it via e-mail.

So me the law that applies in the way you suggest, I guarantee you, it doesn't exist.
So if nobody "noticed" that he stole a computer would that make it less of a theft?

The government did not fire him. Why do you have a beef with "this government"?

How is this situation any different than a confidentiality agreement or a no conflict of interest clause? Why is it that people think they have a "right to jobs" but fail to understand where those jobs come from? Corporations need to have a right to protect themselves within reason and this seems like a clear cut case of the company protecting its own image.
@*Gman*

I don't think government intervention is the right answer. In fact, it's burying the lead. This isn't about "protecting" an image. There is no accusation of slander or libel, and lack of eloquence is unfortunately not a crime. Meanwhile, any engineering or tech company that is intolerant of criticism, both internally and externally is doomed to failure. I've seen massive projects run off the rails. Jobs' reality distortion field is a rare and magical talent. Even then, it is said that Jobs had an award for the person that most effectively disagreed with Jobs. Perhaps there are details we're not privy to. Perhaps the online comments were merely an excuse. However, if Apple is going to such lengths to protect the image they project, people should wonder about the validity of that image.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't know what you are talking about
use_what_works_4_U 1st Dec
@tkejlboom
I worked at Apple and I can assure you from my own experience that criticism of the company is not punished. There is a difference between complaining to someone in the chain of command who can address your issues and maligning the integrity of your employer without seeking redress. Apple has many avenues for its employees to express dissatisfaction and it goes to great lengths to correct such dissatisfaction whenever possible. If the employee had tried those channels and still hated his job, then he should have found another job somewhere else.

The part that people are glossing over is that Apple wasn't snooping their employee's Facebook posts. Someone else who was involved in the online 'discussion' was sufficiently bothered by what this person said that they chose to bring it to their boss' attention.

It's one thing to gripe to a coworker, but to say things so inflammatory that the coworker decides on their own to tell the boss? That is *their* right. If someone you trusted thinks you are that far out of line, then guess what? Maybe you were.
@tkejlboom Agreed, government intervention is not what I was pushing. I was merely asking why the previous poster thinks that something should be done to "step in and stop this government". It didn't even seem like a valid statement to make.

Also agreed that I do not know all of the details of this matter. In general, I do not believe in the idea that employees have all the rights and employers have none. I do believe somewhat that an employer has very limited rights to tell me what to do in my off time or in the privacy of my own home, within reason. Some obvious examples would be working for a competitor, making meth, being a registered sex offender, etc.. It is always the reasoning that gets lost in these anonymous internet tyrades.

The internet has really changed the game in a lot of ways. The biggest impact of the internet is the fact that it can have such a big impact. What may have been a private conversation in my own living room 10 years ago does not equate to me posting a message in writing where millions of people may potentially read it. The first problem is that I actually put it in writing. The second problem is that I have no control over how that might be distributed and/or viewed.

Just a few weeks ago, a local police department employee was fired for making derogatory comments on Facebook about the "Occupy" movement participants camping on the sidewalks downtown.

People need to learn how to accept responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everything on "big corporations" and government. We wouldn't need so much government if people weren't so stupid. A lot of people wouldn't have jobs without those big corporations.

If you are going to say and write things with the obvious intention of making somebody look bad and/or pi$$ing them off, then don't be so surprised when they actually get pi$$ed off and retaliate. I have never worked for Apple and I am currently self employed [for about 5 years now], but this is just common sense (to me anyway).
Depends what the policy specifically says in the context of the terms. It could be that the spirit of the statement in the policy was not to make public comments. Posting a comment to a closed community of people (i.e. Facebook friends) may, legally, mean that it was not a public statement. However if the spirit of the statement was not to place any comments about the company on any webpage then thats different. We are not seeing the full paragraph of the policy, which matters from a technical (legal) standpoint.
0 Votes
+ -
When will people learn how foolish it is to post as much stuff on this site as they do?
Stupid Apple Zombie should get some brains, brains, and a Droid.
While the debate continues I wonder : What exactly is free speech about? Does it have a place in today's information age? There seems to be some new rules that are not well known to everyone. Is it, I can speak my mind but not on Twitter or Facebook? Is this the new reality?
0 Votes
+ -
@dirkmack, doesn't mean that a company has the obligation to keep you around for saying it. He exercised his speech, Apple exercised their right to terminate him. End of story.
"It's Policy". What more is there to say? I'll never understand why some people figure they can get away with policy violations. It might be a different story were there no policy in place.
0 Votes
+ -
no freedom of speech . . .
pikeman666@... 2nd Dec
The UK has incredibly liberal libel laws that will result in lawsuits over public defamation of any sort. If Apple thought they could have squeezed a drop of blood out of this rock he'd have been fired AND sued.
The guy is a dolt; he should have known better.
And if he was indeed this disgruntled he must have been a poor employee to boot.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix