Resources: Blog

Recruitment Company snowed under by social media reaction to misbehaving employees


Cold As Ice

On 10 July 2016, a Mount Buller Reindeer Ski Club employee posted to Facebook a scathing assessment of guests employed by recruitment company, Michael Page Recruitment. The Ski Club employee alleged that the 22 guests caused a nuisance, were heavily intoxicated and became abusive to her and the Ski Club’s Manager.

On 10 July 2016, a Mount Buller Reindeer Ski Club employee posted to Facebook a scathing assessment of guests employed by recruitment company, Michael Page Recruitment (the Company). The Ski Club employee alleged that the 22 guests caused a nuisance, were heavily intoxicated and became abusive to her and the Ski Club’s Manager.

The post detailed that the guests had left rooms in a mess, leaving broken glass on surfaces, rubbish on floors and food and clothes on benches. The employee also stated that guests became aggressive, approaching her and the Manager’s lodgings many times during the middle of the night and early morning angrily demanding that the electricity be fixed. The police were eventually called to attend the Ski Club.

The Facebook post was made public, asked followers to share it with the Company and included a photo of two male guests who were alleged to be involved in the aggressive and abusive behaviour.

It garnered enough social media attraction that the following business day, the Company posted a response addressing the claims. Whilst acknowledging the complaint and offering apologies, the Company was also careful to distance itself from the behaviour, explaining that the ski stay was not funded or sanctioned by the Company. The Company stated that an internal investigation would be carried out.

Not less than three days later however, the Company had announced that it had concluded its investigation and while the outcome was confidential, assured that disciplinary action had been taken against those involved.

Social media judgment was swift: followers expressed disbelief and disgust at the behaviour and questions were asked about the Company’s expectations of employees and they criticised the ‘light’ disciplinary action taken. Many also stated that they would never use the Company again in the future.

Previously it was mainly sportspeople who had their conduct questioned on social media. As demonstrated above, social media is now being used to draw attention to the (mis)behaviour of employees from all types of industries. In our blog from March this year “Video on demand – the Danger to Employers for Employees Caught Behaving Badly” we highlighted the risks to employers and the damage to the business caused by employees conduct where the conduct is shared online.

Whether sanctioned by the Company or not, the conduct of those employees on the ski trip has brought adverse attention to the Company. This was further compounded when the Company’s response was also criticised.

Whether an employer should discipline an employee for the out of work conduct is a difficult question. A number of factors should be considered including the nature of the conduct, reputational damage to the business and any breach of the employment contract. Here, the Company was required to make comment as the result of the public association (whether sanctioned or not) of the behaviour with its business.

Employer responses confirming their organisational values and demonstrating intolerance for behaviour that undermines those values may go some way to repairing the organisation’s reputation in the marketplace. Of course, no matter how annoyed the employer may be – it should not forget its obligations in relation to its dealings with its employees – ensuring procedural fairness where and when required.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

Fair Work Commission finds out-of-hours drink driving offence was not a valid reason for dismissal

Off the clock

Generally, the way in which an employee conducts themselves out-of-hours does not fall within the realm of what the employer can supervise or control. However, there are times where an employee’s conduct after business hours and away from work can impact the employment relationship.


Fair Work Commission upholds dismissal of an employee who misused a company coffee account

Caffeine Hit

Financial misconduct committed by an employee can fundamentally damage the trust and confidence in an employment relationship. Unfortunately, financial misconduct is a common issue for Australian businesses and if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, there is an opportunity for further misadventure.


Casual employee unfairly dismissed for Facebook recommendation

Halt before you post

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.


Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.


Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.