News
BTW: U R fired :(
The advent of email has brought with it the prospect of anonymous - and desensitised - human communication.
There are, of course, some advantages to this. In a workplace, administrative matters (such as details of secretarial cover arrangements for a long weekend) can be dispersed widely, and deleted by those who are not interested.
It does, of course, also offer an easy (and sometimes frustrating) avenue for any staff member wanting to sell their second hand handbag, or confess to finding a missing earring in the lobby.
There is, however, a dark side.
How many of us have received invitations from Nigerian investors, keen to transfer money into our accounts? And there are, of course, a great number of unwanted advertisements, asking us to purchase anything from cheap pharmaceuticals through to American magazines.
But it is culturally that email has had its most significant effect in the workplace.
Employers often make the complaint that their workers now prefer to communicate with each other through their computers rather than talking face-to-face. Indeed, some would say that the art of interpersonal socialisation has been lost in some workplaces.
And, on that point, most of us have probably come across a Manager who preferred to deliver hard messages using email - rather than through the traditional means of staff meetings or one-on-one conversations.
Such technique almost certainly constitutes bad management: but could it also constitute a breach of the law?
2006 was a difficult year for the American electronic store chain RadioShack. Amongst other things, a downturn in the sale of mobile telephones meant that it was suffering financial pressures - such that it had to consider a downsizing of its workforce.
The company's difficulties were not a surprise to staff. RadioShack maintained an intranet site, available to employees, which provided updates on such things as the company's financial challenges.
But when it came to implementing a downsizing, the company took an unusual step. It notified about 400 employees that they had been selected for redundancy by sending them an email. The message told the affected staff that their employment had been terminated immediately.
Under relevant US law, the company was not in any breach of its obligation to the employees. But, even so, many of the workers complained about the way in which the difficult message had been conveyed - and alleged that their employer had treated them in an insensitive and inhumane manner.
The case evoked considerable comment. Amongst the different reactions was a suggestion that asking managers to convey difficult messages (such as the redundancy of staff) placed unreasonable pressure upon them - and that the company might ultimately face claims from managers who were unduly distressed being required to dismiss employees!
So could any of this happen here?
Put simply, it is likely that a New Zealand employer would face exposure to claims if it attempted to effect redundancies solely through the use of email.
New Zealand employers are required to consult with their employees about any change to business which may affect their employment. The Employment Relations Act does not prescribe the way in which that consultation must be effected. It must, however, be conducted in a manner consistent with good faith - and in a way which is open and communicative.
The relevant case law in this area suggests that, at least during the early stages of consultation, direct human contact is expected (unless, perhaps, where that is simply impossible for practical reasons - such as might be the case with remote workers).
While it may be acceptable to deliver the ultimate outcome in the consultation process by email, the delivery of a fait accompli (such as occurred in the RadioShack case) would almost certainly give rise to claims.
Remarkably, the RadioShack case is not unique. In the late part of last year an employee in Wales was dismissed by way of text message.
The woman worked in a body piercing studio and, during a period away from the workplace, she received a "txt" from her employer explaining that her sales figures were inadequate and that "we will not require your services any more – thank you for your time with us."
In New Zealand, an employer concerned about performance - or conducting a disciplinary inquiry - is required to abide with the principles of natural justice, which include giving a person an opportunity to respond to allegations of concern. For similar reasons to those outlined above, an employer would face exposure to risk if it omitted to take those steps - or undertook them by way of text message.
That said, however, this particular worker's case was unusual. It appears that she may have been aware of her pending dismissal, and that she avoided attending work - and meeting with her employer - for that reason. The Employment Relations Authority might have some sympathy for the employer if indeed it was faced with such difficulties.
The moral of the story? Embrace modern technology for the advantages that it presents - but don't overlook the importance of simple human contact.
C U l8r.
