There are cases of employees posting sensitive or disrespectful information and messages about their employers online. This might seem like an innocent joke with the people on your social media feed, however, the backlash is far more serious than that. The conduct of employees on social media platforms is also more frequently exposing employers to the risk of vicarious liability and brand damage.

In considering the risks to employers (and their employees), it is necessary to keep in mind:

  1. the impact of social media on the Constitutional rights to dignity, privacy and freedom of expression;
  2. the risks that defamatory or harassing statements may result in vicarious liability for employers;
  3. the risk of work place harassment and cyber-bullying and the impact of this conduct on the work environment; and
  4. what conduct may justify disciplinary action and even dismissal.

What if an employee posts something negative about their employers?

An employer does have recourse against employees whose social media blunders cause brand damage, or result in the disclosure of confidential information or vicarious liability. The CCMA has accepted that certain conduct on social media may warrant disciplinary action. However, the ordinary principles of fairness and equity apply. When investigating such conduct, care must be taken not to unlawfully infringe rights to privacy and the provisions of the Regulation of Interception of Electronic Communications Act.

In the case of Beaurain v Martin NO & others (2014), Mr Beaurain, was employed by Groote Schuur Hospital. During his employment, he raised various complaints regarding health issues at the hospital. Each complaint was investigated and he was informed that the complaints were without merit. Getting no joy from the hospital, Mr Beaurain started posting his complaints on Facebook. Eventually, the head of Mr Beaurain’s department addressed a letter to him to inform him that he was to stop posting his claims pertaining to health risks at the hospital, on social media. Mr Beaurain did not heed this instruction. This resulted in another letter in which was given a final warning to stop the conduct.

After an angered Facebook post where he attacked the state of the hospital, he was charged with gross insubordination and dismissed. Mr Beaurain referred a dispute to the Labour Court. His dismissal was found to be fair.


Not all comments on social media that are critical of an employer will warrant dismissal. For example, if the post constitutes conduct in alignment with a protected strike or amounts to a protected disclosure, dismissal is not allowed. However, employees should be careful not to post information regarding their employers that could put the brand name in jeopardy or reveal confidential company information.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)


Labour law emphasises that every employee has the right not to be dismissed unfairly. This law defines the meaning of dismissal and when it may lawfully occur. Substantive and procedural fairness determines whether the dismissal was fair.

Dismissal means the following: The termination of a contract of employment with or without notice, and also if the employer fails to provide a fixed-term contract, or he does renew the contract, but on less favourable terms than the employee had reasonably expected.

Section 188 of the Labour Relations Act provides that dismissal is fair if the employer can prove that the dismissal is related to the employee’s conduct or capacity, or if it can be proven that the dismissal is based on the employer’s operational requirements. Dismissal is usually fair if a fair procedure was followed. Good practices are set out in legislation which outlines the discharge processes and must be taken into account.

Labour legislation provides for three different types of discharge, namely dismissal due to misconduct, poor performance or operational requirements. Certain procedures must be followed for each type of discharge. Employers sometimes confuse misconduct with poor performance. It is very important that the correct procedure is followed, but it is also necessary that the cause of the unsatisfactory behaviour is determined.

Misconduct is when the employee has violated certain rules such as rules against dishonesty or theft, or has refused to obey reasonable and lawful instructions. In these situations the employee has decided not to honour the code of conduct. The employee has knowingly violated a rule and therefore the person should be disciplined. This may result in written warnings and/or possible dismissal.

In contrast, poor performance involves situations where the employee is not in deliberate violation of any regulations but it may involve circumstances over which the employee may not necessarily have control. In this case other factors could be the cause of poor performance, such as lack of resources, inexperience, inadequate training or poor health. It is clear that the employee is not directly responsible for the behaviour and therefore disciplinary actions cannot be taken. The employee cannot be blamed for something like illness, therefore a counselling process is followed in lieu of a disciplinary hearing in order to find solutions for the poor performance.

The last type of dismissal is due to operational requirements. This type of discharge has to do with economic conditions, including a shortage of work or a lack of money. These are cases where the employer can no longer afford to retain a certain number of employees or new computers or sophisticated equipment have been acquired which renders a number of employees redundant. These are factors beyond the control of the employee and involves steps that the employer takes to protect his or her business from being ruined financially.

It is very important that the process contained in section 189 of the Labour Relations Act be followed here. This process requires the employer to engage with the employee in a meaningful way in order to negotiate and disclose certain information before dismissal can take place.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.