Employment Contract Breach and Legislative Protections - Analysis of Lainey's Case

Contractual Basis of Lainey's Work Relationship with Bradlington

Lainy is a Librarian Assistant at Bradlington Public Library.  She answered an advertisement titled “Junior Librarian, long term position, training provided”. Lainey works at Bradlington’s premises from 9am to 5pm; Monday to Friday.  She undertakes an administrative role completing a number of varied tasks supporting senior librarians including data entry, returning books to shelves and assisting the public with any queries.  She must abide by Bradlington’s dress code but wears no uniform and can use the Library’s vehicle for errands during work time.  Lainey has an ABN and invoices Bradlington monthly on an hourly basis for her hours of work. While Lainey pays her own tax, Bradlington make superannuation contributions on her behalf.

When Lainey applied for her job, she did not anticipate the difficulty she would have with her immediate supervisor, Warren.  She remembers when she attended the interview that Warren, Bradlington’s human resources manager, had asked about her hobbies and that she had responded enthusiastically about her belly dancing class and interest in photography.  Lainey had also been asked whether she was on Facebook and if she used Twitter.   Warren had suggested that Lainey add Warren as a friend so Bradlington could find out more about her. He also advised Lainey to join Twitter as it was a good opportunity to advertise library services.

Bradlington have a social networking policy that requires employees to use their professional judgement in the use of social media, and in particular to be mindful of Facebook and Twitter communications to Bradlington employees or communications which could be viewed by Bradlington employees.  The policy also refers to Bradlington employees having a responsibility to ensure any references they make to Bradlington are factual and do not contain confidential information.  Finally, the policy states that non-compliance will be considered misconduct. The social networking policy was first implemented, a month before Lainey started working at Bradlington.

Lainey says she loves working at the Library and would like to further her studies in that area.  She enjoys helping people and has become an avid reader, though she has gradually developed a dislike for Warren, who teases her about her looks and is always criticising her work.

A couple of months ago, instead of congratulating her on her acceptance to the University to commence post graduate studies, Warren chose to comment, “Can I expect you will start doing a good job now?” Warren has made a number of other targeted remarks standing adjacent to Lainey’s office partition.  They seem to be designed to be overheard. A particularly smarting comment referred to the “crazy nuts” that spend their lives behind a camera.  The next day Warren remarked to a senior colleague, in Lainey’s hearing, “She will never get a promotion while she hides behind a lens” and “Her belly dancing costume would be more appropriate than the clothes she wears to work”.  Last month, after a few birthday drinks with her friends, Lainey went home and posted a note on her Facebook page, “Bosses know nothing about nothing.  They are just mean and ignorant and have no idea of fashion.”  

During the last fortnight, Lainey has worked late, for an extra two hours each day, indexing a new series of books that have been purchased by the library.  Communications between Lainey and Warren have deteriorated during this extra time together.  Warren now refuses to greets Lainey each day and Lainey leaves most evenings to Warren’s taunt: “Maybe think about whether you even want to bother coming back tomorrow – you will never get anywhere in this profession”.  

Lainey has also made several comments on Twitter about the mismanagement of libraries.  One comment she made suggested the Library was antiquated and purchasing new books was a waste of money in an age where tablets were the way of the future. Bradlington’s managing director has seen Lainey’s comments on Twitter and is concerned about the impacts on the Library.

Advise Bradlington on whether they or Lainey are in breach of contractual terms, and also whether Lainey could claim any legislative protections in relation to Warren’s conduct. Consider the contractual basis of Lainey’s work relationship with Bradlington first.