Spending more than one-half of workdays surfing the Internet and looking at porn serious but not enough for dismissal: Adjudicator
A federal government worker who was fired for spending more than half his time in the office surfing the Internet and looking at pornography online has been reinstated with a suspension by a Canadian Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator.
Franklin Andrews was a senior analyst and policy advisor for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) with 27 years of discipline-free service. In August 2009, CIC became aware that Andrews had been spending a lot of time using the Internet for non-work-related purposes while at work through a routine spot-check of employees’ bandwidth usage. The check revealed that not only was Andrews surfing the Internet frequently, but he was also viewing pornographic images.
CIC’s IT security team downloaded copies of the images from Andrews’ computer and the investigation revealed he had spent between 50 and 100 per cent of his day browsing the Internet from September to November 2008 and from May to August 2009 (Andrews was in special language training from January to May 2009). On Sept. 11, 2009, two CIC directors met with Andrews to inform him of what had been found. Andrews admitted to excessive use of the Internet on his computer and viewing sexually explicit materials while at work. He needed to use the Internet for work-related research, but he acknowledged he also browsed news and sports websites. He initially claimed he spend between 25 and 50 per cent of his time online but later admitted it was higher, though he claimed he didn’t realize it was as high as it was.
Employee had too much time on his hands
Expressing remorse and embarrassment, Andrews explained a lot of his Internet browsing was because he was bored and didn’t have enough work to do and nobody told him his Internet use was excessive. He was shocked by the investigation and after he was notified, he was more careful about his Internet use.
Andrews wasn’t closely supervised in his job and he received assignments from two different supervisors. He occasionally met to discuss his work but didn’t ever suggest he was lacking in work. There was plenty of work available and the supervisors felt if he had time he should have asked for more.
CIC felt the amount of time Andrews spent on the Internet while being paid at work was time theft and on par with falsifying a time card and also felt he misused government property and equipment. It reasoned he should have been aware of how much time he was wasting on non-work-related activities and simply had to ask for more work if he needed it. CIC also found there were ethics issues with the sexual content he viewed, including actively participating in online groups and emailing images from his work account to his personal account.
On Nov. 3, 2009, CIC decided to terminate Andrews’ employment for time theft and using government equipment for non-work-related and inappropriate activities.
The adjudicator found excessive use of the employer’s Internet services for non-work-related purposes was not the same as time theft, even though Andrews was being paid for doing work but not working during those times. Time theft, said the adjudicator, is usually more of “an overtly fraudulent act” with more intent. In Andrews’ case, it was a product of idleness that gradually became worse without Andrews intending it to be so.
The adjudicator also found that although Andrews could have asked for more work, the supervisors should have done a better job of supervising him.
“I find it surprising that an employee could spend the amount of time that (Andrews) did on non-work-related activities for months without his supervisors noting a lack of production or engagement,” said the adjudicator. “It seems to me that (his) supervisors had a responsibility to regularly review his work and production and to assess his workload, which clearly they did not do.”
The adjudicator found it wasn’t important whether any other employees saw the pornographic images —Andrews had an office and turned his computer away from the door — because he still violated CIC’s policy on using electronic networks as well as “any common sense standard of behaviour at work.”
While Andrews’ misconduct was serious, the adjudicator pointed out the effective discipline should be deterring, particularly for a long-term employee with no prior discipline. In addition, Andrews demonstrated remorse, co-operated with the investigation and corrected his behaviour once he was aware of it. These factors gave Andrews’ a high potential for rehabilitation, said the adjudicator.
CIC was ordered to reinstate Andrews with an unpaid suspension from the time of his dismissal to the date of the decision, a total suspension of nine months.
“I am mindful that it is a long suspension, but I believe that it reflects the seriousness and nature of the offence and the employer’s need for deterrence,” said the adjudicator.
For more information see:
