New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer

Forums › Off topic › New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 12

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#875779 12-Aug-2013 12:04

sdav: I want to know what they allege she did on her sick leave which lead to the abuse claim from Air NZ. I think this makes a big difference because if they allege she went to a movie with her sick relative and want bank statements to prove it then no, going to a movie is not that unreasonable. If they claim she flew to Wellington for the weekend for a food festival with her allegedly sick relative then I think that's fair she fronts up with the records as that is an unreasonable thing to do.

If a relative is sick enough you have to have time off work to care for them, you really shouldn't be taking them out to the movies imo...

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#875794 12-Aug-2013 12:21

Inphinity:
sdav: I want to know what they allege she did on her sick leave which lead to the abuse claim from Air NZ. I think this makes a big difference because if they allege she went to a movie with her sick relative and want bank statements to prove it then no, going to a movie is not that unreasonable. If they claim she flew to Wellington for the weekend for a food festival with her allegedly sick relative then I think that's fair she fronts up with the records as that is an unreasonable thing to do.

If a relative is sick enough you have to have time off work to care for them, you really shouldn't be taking them out to the movies imo...

But you know what I mean. If you do something to make them feel better which is really quite minor you shouldn't loose your job.

I know as an employer you would be a little miffed but still, going out to lunch or to a movie might just be what cheers someone up.

My point is without full context it's impossible to decide if Air NZ has the rights to the info. My guess is that's how she got caught anyway.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#875798 12-Aug-2013 12:30

I do miss the UK sick leave provisions.

Most white collar contracts there would have a provision for up to 5 days as self certified (so if you get a cold you need not come to work or go to the doctor as long as you are back within 5 days) and a doctor's note is required after that.

Usually you are entitled to between 3 and 6 months on your full salary (at the employer's expense) if a doctor signs you off and then it falls to the half pay for up to 12 months.

NZ is actually pretty poor when it comes to this sort of thing from an employee rights point of view.

As to Facebook records, this is one of the dangers in bothering to use it!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#875814 12-Aug-2013 13:07

Inphinity:
sdav: I want to know what they allege she did on her sick leave which lead to the abuse claim from Air NZ. I think this makes a big difference because if they allege she went to a movie with her sick relative and want bank statements to prove it then no, going to a movie is not that unreasonable. If they claim she flew to Wellington for the weekend for a food festival with her allegedly sick relative then I think that's fair she fronts up with the records as that is an unreasonable thing to do.

If a relative is sick enough you have to have time off work to care for them, you really shouldn't be taking them out to the movies imo...

That would depend on the condition.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#875816 12-Aug-2013 13:14

I don't feel the slightest bit of pity for her, it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.

While I have no knowledge of the case, if I had to guess, I'd say she applied for leave for a specific purpose, but it was declined. Then what do you know, she's got a sick sister, and for the same two days she wanted off, what are the odds.
Hopefully she learns form it, but I doubt it.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#875826 12-Aug-2013 13:34

it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.

How do we know that?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#875840 12-Aug-2013 13:44

Technofreak:
it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.
How do we know that?

She was caring for her sister.

Generally sick leave can be extended to looking after one's kids, or spouse. I think a sister is a bit of a stretch.

Sick leave can be used when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee’s spouse or partner or a person who depends on the employee for care (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured.

http://dol.govt.nz/er/holidaysandleave/sickleave/

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#875842 12-Aug-2013 13:48

Klipspringer:
Technofreak:
it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.
How do we know that?

She was caring for her sister.

Generally sick leave can be extended to looking after one's kids, or spouse. I think a sister is a bit of a stretch.

Sick leave can be used when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee’s spouse or partner or a person who depends on the employee for care (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured.

http://dol.govt.nz/er/holidaysandleave/sickleave/

If the sister is dependent on her for care then Section 65(1) (c) comes into play.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#875844 12-Aug-2013 13:50

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
Technofreak:
it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.
How do we know that?

She was caring for her sister.

Generally sick leave can be extended to looking after one's kids, or spouse. I think a sister is a bit of a stretch.

Sick leave can be used when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee’s spouse or partner or a person who depends on the employee for care (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured.

http://dol.govt.nz/er/holidaysandleave/sickleave/

If the sister is dependent on her for care then Section 65(1) (c) comes into play.

Yes I know that.
But I think that it would be quiet an unusual case if her sister is really a dependent.

If the employer suspects the employee is not really sick, or their dependent is not really sick, the employer can ask for proof (ie medical certificate for the employee or their dependent).

If the employee can't supply that proof then there is a problem.

I also seem to recall that a new law came into effect a little while ago where an employer can ask for a medical certificate even on the first day off work. Not sure though.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#875850 12-Aug-2013 14:01

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
Technofreak:
it's clear from what we do know that it wasn't a legitimate sick day.
How do we know that?

She was caring for her sister.

Generally sick leave can be extended to looking after one's kids, or spouse. I think a sister is a bit of a stretch.

Sick leave can be used when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee’s spouse or partner or a person who depends on the employee for care (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured.

http://dol.govt.nz/er/holidaysandleave/sickleave/

If the sister is dependent on her for care then Section 65(1) (c) comes into play.

Yes I know that.
But I think that it would be quiet an unusual case if her sister is really a dependent.

If the employer suspects the employee is not really sick, or their dependent is not really sick, the employer can ask for proof (ie medical certificate for the employee or their dependent).

If the employee can't supply that then there is a problem.

I also seem to recall that a new law came into effect a little while ago where an employer can ask for a medical certificate even on the first day off work. Not sure though.

I have dealt with a large number of people who are dependent on others(spouses, parents siblings etc) for care, it is not uncommon.

An employer can ask for proof earlier than 3 day if .....
a)informs the employee as early as possible that the proof is required; and
(b)agrees to meet the employee's reasonable expenses in obtaining the proof.

That is contained in section 68 (1) (a)

trig42

5809 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#875886 12-Aug-2013 15:04

Inphinity:
sdav: I want to know what they allege she did on her sick leave which lead to the abuse claim from Air NZ. I think this makes a big difference because if they allege she went to a movie with her sick relative and want bank statements to prove it then no, going to a movie is not that unreasonable. If they claim she flew to Wellington for the weekend for a food festival with her allegedly sick relative then I think that's fair she fronts up with the records as that is an unreasonable thing to do.

If a relative is sick enough you have to have time off work to care for them, you really shouldn't be taking them out to the movies imo...

I doubt she flew to Wellington...

Or maybe she flew with Jetstar and that's why they fired her...

;)

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#875931 12-Aug-2013 15:57

As I see it this isn't about what a person did or didn't do it is about it is about the limits to what can be or should requested.

What if the person wasn't on FB, or just didn't post that day, or used cash?

Having said that this is the employment tribunal. If they are saying "OK, do you have any Facebook posts or bank transactions which support your claim to be using your sick leave correctly?" then that would be a different matter.

If you put "At home sick :-(" on your Facebook page would that constitute evidence that you really were sick?

I also think there is an interesting parallel with the GCSB investigation into Andrea Vance and co. What if her phone records actually showed who leaked the report? Pretty much everybody is in agreement in that case that whatever those records would have shown wasn't important enough to justify reading them.

Where do we draw the line?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#875964 12-Aug-2013 16:03

One difference I see in this case, that is imo important, is the *employee* is the one who has raised the case to the ERA. Air NZ aren't taking her to court or anything, she's gone to ERA to contest her dismissal, and it would seem that it has been raised that content on her facebook indicated she was not using her sick leave legitimately. Thus, the ERA have requested she disclose this information for *HER* case to continue. While I don't condone in any way the right of an employer to obtain social media or other personal info, I do think if you're going to try and make this sort of formal complaint (in this case to the ERA) then go "No I can't show you that it'll show I'm lying" (not a quote, of course, but it is heavily implied by the refusal).. you may want to think things through a bit better next time. You're welcome to not disclose it, and by doing so, the ERA can draw their own conclusion (or, in fact, simply decide there's no evidence either way and drop the complaint).

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#875973 12-Aug-2013 16:20

@Inphinity

I agree with you.

I think the way, ironically, the media have reported this as Court Demands Facebook Posts and Bank Details!

Has gone a long way to cloud the issues involved.

Personally, I post pictures of fine weather in Wellington on Facebook and that is about it these days as I simply don't trust professional vs personal boundaries to be respected.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#875990 12-Aug-2013 16:45

Inphinity: One difference I see in this case, that is imo important, is the *employee* is the one who has raised the case to the ERA. Air NZ aren't taking her to court or anything, she's gone to ERA to contest her dismissal, and it would seem that it has been raised that content on her facebook indicated she was not using her sick leave legitimately. Thus, the ERA have requested she disclose this information for *HER* case to continue. While I don't condone in any way the right of an employer to obtain social media or other personal info, I do think if you're going to try and make this sort of formal complaint (in this case to the ERA) then go "No I can't show you that it'll show I'm lying" (not a quote, of course, but it is heavily implied by the refusal).. you may want to think things through a bit better next time. You're welcome to not disclose it, and by doing so, the ERA can draw their own conclusion (or, in fact, simply decide there's no evidence either way and drop the complaint).

This!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 12