Worker spent hours a day surfing the Internet and making online purchases
This instalment of You Make the Call features an employee who was dismissed after inappropriate Internet surfing on his work computer.
The employee was hired by GO Transit, a government-run commuter transit service in the Greater Toronto Area, in 1981 to be a ticket collector. Six years later, he became a station attendant selling tickets and passes, providing trip information to customers and announcing service delays. He usually worked on his own with no supervision in the station. Supervisors made occasional visits to the station, but not always on the employee’s shift.
The employee worked in a ticket sales booth with clear glass walls from about waist height, inside a building where there was a newsstand, public washrooms and utility rooms. There were several entrances to the building, including ones which were outside of the employee’s field of view and where his computer monitor was visible. Passenger trains and buses stopped outside the station several times over the course of the day.
The computer at the employee’s workstation was originally connected only to the GO Transit network, but eventually was given general access to the Internet so he could assist customers in finding directions, trip planning, and other information. As a result, GO Transit instituted an electronic communications policy, which stated unacceptable use was “any activity that interferes with the business” and displayed or transmitted sexually oriented material, as well as “any activity for private or personal business.” Email use was also to be only for business purposes. GO Transit also had a code of business conduct and ethical behaviour, which stated corporate assets “are to be used solely for the purposes of conducting the affairs of the corporation.” The employee signed an acknowledgment of the policies.
On March 20, 2013, a third-party network monitoring provider notified GO Transit’s IT department that the employee’s computer made at least 80 blocked adult content web requests in a 24-hour period. Two weeks later, another notice was sent and the resulting report showed the employee had been spending several hours per day browsing websites for other than business purposes, including sites with adult content and sales sites such as Kajiji and Craigslist, upon which the employee had apparently been placing advertisements and accessing a non-work email account.
The employee acknowledged that he may have accidentally accessed “centerfold-type” sites through clicking links and said it was possible he spent four to six hours a day on the Internet. He admitted he checked personal email, posted ads on sales sites, visited soccer sites and listened to music. He also acknowledged he conducted searches to try to circumvent the blocking software and visited Youtube daily for videos and music. He claimed he avoided having adult content on the screen when customers came to the booth, though he admitted if someone came in through a door behind him, it could have happened. GO Transit suspended him pending further investigation.
The day after the meeting, the employee sent an email promising it would never happen again if he was given another chance. He later testified his surfing was “bad judgment.” However, GO Transit terminated his employment for violating its policy and code of conduct.
You Make the Call
Should lesser discipline have been given to the employee?
OR
Was the employer justified in dismissing the employee?
IF YOU SAID lesser discipline was warranted, you’re right. The board found GO Transit’s rule that its computers were to be used to access the Internet for business purposes only was “very clear” and reasonable, and the employee “broke that rule, repeatedly and deliberately.” There was no doubt discipline was warranted, said the board.
It also didn’t help the employee’s case that he wasn’t initially honest at the investigative meeting regarding the extent of his Internet use and was only apologetic once he was dismissed.
However, despite the length of time over which the employee breached the policy and showed “general bad judgment,” he had a long term of service — 32 years — with no prior discipline on record.
“The (employee’s) long service favours the conclusion that the unexplained ‘bad judgment’ was a ‘one off’ blind spot in an otherwise generally reliable employee,” said the board.
The board found that the employee knew the difference between business and non-business use of the Internet on his work computer and “whatever he may have thought before, that his breaching the rule will lead to very serious consequences.”
The board also found that if the employee were reinstated, GO Transit wouldn’t have to make extra efforts or incur additional costs to supervise him, since his Internet use was already monitored. If the employee didn’t mend his ways, GO Transit would know.
