Moderate your point of view
In this case, Taurima’s involvement with Labour called into question his ability to maintain his journalistic independence and, more importantly, was a misuse of company resources.
But in another case, the Employment Relations Authority found that the employer had acted unfairly in restricting an employee’s ability to engage in political activity. The case concerned a presenter for Maori Television, Ngarimu Daniels, who was instructed by her employer not to take part in protest meetings against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, as she was the ‘‘recognisable face of Maori Television’’.
It was made clear to Daniels that by taking part in the protests, she would be putting her employment in jeopardy.
The authority concluded that prohibiting Daniels from protesting was not fair and reasonable, and the employer’s actions amounted to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.
In more recent example, a doctor who worked for Whanganui DHB faced disciplinary action after he was involved in a public protest against the Transpacific Partnership.
The action was dropped when the Council of Trade Unions and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists intervened, but it again shows that, even outside work, expressing political views can be problematic for employees in certain roles.
I have recently heard complaints about employers trying to ‘‘gag’’ employees from speaking to the media or through other public channels. In short, it is acceptable for employers to protect their brand and reputation by restricting what employees say publicly insofar as it relates to their employment. Otherwise employees are free to say and do what they want in their own time.
The question is where the line is drawn between work and nonwork related comment.
For someone like Hosking, who is effectively public property, there is unlikely to be much of a distinction.
Susan Hornsby-geluk is a partner at Dundas Street Employment Lawyers. www.dundasstreet.co.nz