The HR Space is edited by Louise Béchamp, Karen M. Sargeant and Brian P. Smeenk.
It is now common for employees to have access to the Internet at work. Many use the Internet for personal reasons during work time. Many employers are concerned about the loss of productivity resulting from excessive personal use of the Internet.
A number of employers have attempted to characterize excessive personal Internet use as "time theft", as a result of the work hours lost. This is a concept historically used to describe situations when employees claim to be at work but are not.
Two recent arbitration cases looked at this issue.
In Andrews v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) (August 2011) (PDF), an investigation revealed that the employee, Franklin Andrews, spent ½ to ¾ of his workday using the Internet for non-work-related purposes, for significant periods of time in 2008 and 2009. Much of Andrews' browsing time was spent viewing pornography.
During the investigation, Andrews was cooperative, remorseful and admitted to the significant amount of time spent on personal Internet use. He claimed that he did not have enough work to do. He had a clean disciplinary record, 27 years of service, stellar performance reviews, and consistently met his deadlines.
The employer discharged Andrews for cause. At arbitration, Andrews again acknowledged his wrongdoing. He argued that dismissal was a disproportionate reaction. The employer argued that Andrews had committed time theft, as he "sat at a desk surfing the Internet for half the day, day after day and month after month, claiming pay for time not worked...". It argued that discharge was appropriate.
The Adjudicator ruled that Andrews' actions did not amount to time theft. Personal use of the Internet was permissible at work, and time and working hours were not actively recorded. She stated that time theft involves a fraudulent intent to deceive the employer. This fundamental element of a fraudulent intent was not found on the facts of this case. However, Andrews still bore some blame.
Andrews was reinstated without back pay by the Adjudicator. This was due to his cooperation, remorse, acknowledgment of guilt, and significant mitigating factors.
In Health Sciences Association of British Columbia v. Health Employers' Association of British Columbia (October 2011) (PDF), Vic Cheema was dismissed for cause because of excessive personal Internet use in breach of employer policies. As in Andrews, the employer considered Cheema's actions to constitute time theft.
The Arbitrator did not accept the employer's characterization, noting that Cheema was at the office during the relevant periods and responded to all workplace demands promptly and efficiently. The Arbitrator chose to characterize Cheema's actions as a "productivity issue, rather than theft." He observed that while "[w]asting time on a job can certainly be subject to discipline even discharge," in this case, the conduct did not amount to time theft.
The Arbitrator described time theft as having a "quasi-criminal nature". He noted that there was no "clear and convincing evidence" of Cheema using the Internet for personal reasons when he should have been working on preventative maintenance. This is similar to the lack of "fraudulent intent" required to make out the charge of time theft noted in Andrews.
The Arbitrator substituted a 15-day suspension for the termination.
Lessons Learned
In both cases, the employees responded to workplace demands in a timely manner and had positive performance reviews. This ability to respond to workplace demands and the lack of intention to defraud the employer led to the arbitrators finding that excessive personal Internet use did not amount to time theft.
The cases do highlight the need to have clear policies in order to be able to rely upon these policies to uphold a termination. In the Andrews case, the employer implemented policies relating to inappropriate Internet use, but did not specify what would constitute excessive use warranting discipline. This lack of specificity can make it difficult to justify termination, particularly in the case of a long service, high performing employee. Employers should review their Internet use policies to determine whether their organization's expectations are clearly laid out for their employees.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
