New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer

An anonymous reader writes with a story out of New Zealand: "Gina Kensington was sacked by Air New Zealand earlier this year following a dispute over sick leave she took to care for her sister. She said she did not misuse sick leave, and went to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) seeking reinstatement. Air New Zealand responded by demanding to see her Facebook and bank details. Kensington refused, saying it did not have that information when it dismissed her and that 'it is well accepted in New Zealand there are general and legal privacy expectations about people's personal and financial information.'" At least in the U.S., Facebook isn't keen on employers getting access to employees' Facebook account details.

Re:Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

[Maelwryth]

It isn't a court. It's a quasi legal jump through these hoops before you can go to court so we can settle your case at a lower cost to the government.

Firstly you go to the ERA [era.govt.nz] then to the Employment Court [justice.govt.nz].

This is why...

[MasseKid]

This is why courts are setup in tiers. This is why there are appeals. Because a stupid judge somewhere can't think hard enough to realize why this is dumb and the implications of the precedent they're setting. Luckily, the appeals courts generally sort this thing out before it goes too far off the rails.

Re:Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is very lax with employment law, in the UK at least (and I expect NZ too since their legal system is pretty similar:

fired from job without reason (like At Will employ)

Not allowed. You can't be fired without activating some clause in your contract. The two typical ones are gross misconduct (doing something dangerous, or illegal at work), or repeated misconduct (doing something the boss has asked you not to do repeatedly, and having a paper trail proving that the boss has repeatedly asked you not to do it).

- let go (layoff for vague reasons about not needing them)

Not really possible –if you lay people off you are not allowed to hire people into the same or similar roles for the next 6 months, which in practice makes it impossible to "fire" someone this way, as you still need someone to do the job.

- scheduled for very few hours until they quit because they need more income

Very very risk –likely to land you a Constructive Dismissal law suit. Constructive dismissal is where you make conditions so bad that the person is forced to resign instead of be fired.

- see pay cuts for under performance (sounds like they could probably validate that)

Also likely to get you for constructive dismissal. Also, being off sick is not poor performance.

- told they cannot take leave without significant prior notice

Their contract is almost certain to specify exactly what leave they're allowed to take. Sick leave is legally mandated to be allowed (in the UK for up to 3 days without a doctors note, and indefinitely if the doctor attests to you being incapable).

- made to have unpleasant, but legal, work conditions like a crappy office near noisy/smelly things, etc.

Again, likely to get you done for constructive dismissal.

Re:Anything you say online...

[animaal]

Since your question is general, not specific to this case - it depends on the Contract Law in whatever jurisdiction the employee works.

In most countries, the replacement will now be an employee. If the country provides protection to employees against termination, (s)he has it. The employer may have to suck up the additional costs of employing an extra employee. This is why dismissals should be undertaken with great care.

In reality, many countries allow a probationary period for new employees. If the employer isn't happy with the new employee by the end of the period (or even earlier), the employee can be et go with minimal fuss. So the replacement may be let go for any reason.