\u201cWorking hours have become more of a suggestion for some employees, especially under work-from-home policies that developed after the pandemic.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
She explained that for employees working remotely, the absence of traditional supervision has led to blurred lines between professional and personal conduct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPeople became more flexible, they\u2019d go fetch their children from school, delay work responsibilities, or be active on social media during office hours,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the main challenges is that South Africa\u2019s existing labour legislation, particularly the Labour Relations Act (LRA), was written before the rise of social media and the widespread adoption of remote work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe legislation does not define social media misconduct specifically,\u201d she explained. \u201cThis means employers and employees are both unable to determine under which circumstances dismissal is an appropriate sanction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While some instances may seem obviously dismissible, such as making defamatory or discriminatory remarks online, Hartnick points out that many cases are less clear-cut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere are many who are simply unaware of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to being dismissed for what they post, like, or share on social media,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The result is a growing number of workplace disputes that are testing the limits of outdated labour frameworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Watch what you say online<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/CCMA-1024x576.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nHartnick noted that some cases have involved social media misconduct brought before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), but the legal precedents remain fragmented and incomplete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOver the past few years, there have been more and more of these cases, and social media conduct is taking a bigger toll on both employers and employees,\u201d she noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Importantly, Hartnick distinguished between overtly offensive content and more subtle breaches of conduct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYes, posting misogynistic or homophobic content that brings a company into disrepute is an obvious issue,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHowever, there\u2019s also the matter of simply being on social media during designated working hours or using it in ways that violate the expectations of your employment contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She believes this type of conduct is becoming increasingly relevant and problematic, as more South Africans work remotely and navigate looser schedules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The situation becomes even more complex in industries like sport or influencer marketing, where public image is central to contractual relationships. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf someone is contracted to a brand or club, and they post something controversial or behave poorly online, it can damage that brand\u2019s image,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis can breach their agreement’s moral or reputational clauses. But again, the law hasn’t yet caught up with these realities.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For employers who want to prevent these kinds of disputes, Hartnick strongly recommends implementing comprehensive social media policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMany employment contracts don\u2019t explicitly regulate conduct during working hours, and few have detailed social media clauses,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis creates confusion for both parties. It blurs the lines and leads to uncertainty about what is acceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No such thing as posting in your “personal capacity”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nHartnick noted that some cases have involved social media misconduct brought before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), but the legal precedents remain fragmented and incomplete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOver the past few years, there have been more and more of these cases, and social media conduct is taking a bigger toll on both employers and employees,\u201d she noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Importantly, Hartnick distinguished between overtly offensive content and more subtle breaches of conduct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYes, posting misogynistic or homophobic content that brings a company into disrepute is an obvious issue,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHowever, there\u2019s also the matter of simply being on social media during designated working hours or using it in ways that violate the expectations of your employment contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She believes this type of conduct is becoming increasingly relevant and problematic, as more South Africans work remotely and navigate looser schedules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The situation becomes even more complex in industries like sport or influencer marketing, where public image is central to contractual relationships. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf someone is contracted to a brand or club, and they post something controversial or behave poorly online, it can damage that brand\u2019s image,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis can breach their agreement’s moral or reputational clauses. But again, the law hasn’t yet caught up with these realities.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For employers who want to prevent these kinds of disputes, Hartnick strongly recommends implementing comprehensive social media policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMany employment contracts don\u2019t explicitly regulate conduct during working hours, and few have detailed social media clauses,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis creates confusion for both parties. It blurs the lines and leads to uncertainty about what is acceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n