{"id":5407,"date":"2019-08-29T02:31:26","date_gmt":"2019-08-29T02:31:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/"},"modified":"2019-08-29T02:31:26","modified_gmt":"2019-08-29T02:31:26","slug":"high-court-decision-handed-down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/","title":{"rendered":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant"},"content":{"rendered":"

High Court Decision handed down in Comcare v Banerji<\/em><\/h1>\n

\"Employers<\/p>\n

The High Court of Australia has handed down its verdict in the matter of Comcare v Banerji<\/em>. The case involved a Department of Immigration and Border Protection employee tweeting anonymously over 9,000 times about the department. Read our previous blog here<\/a> for a summary of the case.<\/p>\n

The High Court ultimately ruled that the APS Code was \u201cproportionate to its purpose of maintaining apolitical public service\u201d and favoured Comcare\u2019s appeal. This means that Ms Banerji\u2019s dismissal was lawful.<\/p>\n

Ms Banerji\u2019s case for free speech was earmarked by political analysts and media outlets to be a \u2018landmark\u2019 case. The decision reached by the High Court of Australia presents major implications for public sector employees who choose to communicate their political opinions on social media.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Implications of the High Court\u2019s Decision<\/h2>\n

Effects on political discussion for government employees<\/u><\/em><\/h3>\n

The High Court\u2019s judgment clarified that government policies including the APS Code of Conduct affects the political engagement of public servants outside their employment. Arguably, this decision has empowered federal, state and local governments to limit the ability of around 2 million public servants to critically comment on political discourse.<\/p>\n

Had the High Court\u2019s decision been in favour of Ms Banerji, it may have limited the scope of government departments intervening or investigating, the political lives of their employees.<\/p>\n

This decision also reinforces the idea that public servants cannot separate their personal political opinions from the neutral views expected of an employee of a government agency. Public servants now have clear restrictions about the comments they can make.<\/p>\n

Implications for Private-Sector Employees <\/u><\/em><\/h3>\n

While this decision does not apply to private sector employment, there may still be effects. For the private sector, restrictions on political communication cannot be enforced, as employees do not represent the government in the same way that public workers do. However, the concern that employers can have control over an employee\u2019s private views lingers, no matter the sector.<\/p>\n

Employers should be aware of what is said or posted about their business or company on line and take steps to ensure that their employees are aware of what they can and cannot post about the business.<\/p>\n

Anonymity will not protect your Freedom of Speech<\/u><\/em><\/h3>\n

Ms Banerji\u2019s lawyers argued that her termination was unfair as her Twitter account did not disclose that it was operated by a government employee, and therefore could not bring the APS into disrepute.<\/p>\n

The High Court held that the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act requiring employees to uphold APS values, including impartiality, is relevant to all public servants and still applies if a comment is made anonymously, or under a fake name. The Court held that \u201cdamage to the good reputation of the APS is apt to occur\u201d <\/em>when critical comments concerning a government department\u2019s administration are made, \u201ceven if the author’s identity and employment are never discovered.\u201d<\/em> The High Court noted that \u201cas a rule of thumb, anyone who posts material online, particularly on social media websites, should assume that, at some point, his or her identity and the nature of his or her employment will be revealed<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although Ms Banerji tweeted from a private device, mostly outside of work hours and did not disclose any confidential Department information, the High Court has confirmed in this case that anonymity does not protect the identity of public<\/p>\n

Employers need to remain vigilant in the age of social media about the content that relates to their business online, and should employ procedures and policies that prevent public comments from employees which damage their image.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Employers, if you have any concerns about the validity of the terms in your employment contracts or Codes of Conduct, please do not hesitate to contact our Managing Associate, Julia Adlem, or call her or one of our friendly employment lawyers on: 08 8410 9294 or contact us via email with this form<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

High Court Decision handed down in Comcare v Banerji The High Court of Australia has handed down its verdict in the matter of Comcare v Banerji. The case involved a Department of Immigration and Border Protection employee tweeting anonymously over 9,000 times about the department. Read our previous blog here for a summary of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nEmployers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Pace Adelaide Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/de3b6a7bd877191a5672d0f55e6baaee\"},\"headline\":\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\"},\"wordCount\":660,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Employment Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\",\"name\":\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and.jpg\",\"width\":820,\"height\":443,\"caption\":\"Employers need to be vigilant in the age of social media\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Adelaide Legal Advice\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/category\/adelaide-legal-advice\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Employers Need To Be Vigilant\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/\",\"name\":\"Pace Adelaide Legal\",\"description\":\"Adelaide Lawyers - Legal Services\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Adelaide Legal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/17-10-2015-15-47-10.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/17-10-2015-15-47-10.png\",\"width\":392,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"Adelaide Legal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/de3b6a7bd877191a5672d0f55e6baaee\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/118d652cb22755d22b62e67c254b04bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/118d652cb22755d22b62e67c254b04bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict","description":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict","og_description":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.","og_url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/","og_site_name":"Pace Adelaide Legal","article_published_time":"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/de3b6a7bd877191a5672d0f55e6baaee"},"headline":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant","datePublished":"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00","dateModified":"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/"},"wordCount":660,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg","articleSection":["Employment Law"],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/","url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/","name":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant - High Court Verdict","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and-768x415.jpg","datePublished":"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00","dateModified":"2019-08-29T02:31:26+00:00","description":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant. High Court of Australia verdict in the matter of Comcare v Baneji. Employee tweeting 9,000 times about the deprtment.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0-6359_all-social-media-logos-png-jpg-black-and.jpg","width":820,"height":443,"caption":"Employers need to be vigilant in the age of social media"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/high-court-decision-handed-down\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adelaide Legal Advice","item":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/category\/adelaide-legal-advice\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Employers Need To Be Vigilant"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#website","url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/","name":"Pace Adelaide Legal","description":"Adelaide Lawyers - Legal Services","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#organization","name":"Adelaide Legal","url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/17-10-2015-15-47-10.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/17-10-2015-15-47-10.png","width":392,"height":64,"caption":"Adelaide Legal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/de3b6a7bd877191a5672d0f55e6baaee","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/118d652cb22755d22b62e67c254b04bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/118d652cb22755d22b62e67c254b04bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5407"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paceadelaidelegal.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}