Conflict Of Interest In The Workplace

Conflict of Interest

An employer may concern themselves with whom their employees associate themselves with after- hours, the reason being that certain associations may lead to a conflict of interest. For example where an employee of Coca-Cola is friends with an employee of Pepsi. Whether an employee may act on such a concern and if so to what extent remains to be determined. Section 18 of the Constitution provides individuals with the right to freedom of association, which if directly interpreted means that individuals may associate themselves with whomever they wish, nevertheless, section 36 of the Constitution makes provision for limitation of rights, however such limitations must be reasonable and justifiable and only in terms of general

. Social media plays a role in and outside the workplace. It would seem reasonable for an employer to have an input as to when an employee may use social media during work hours, as it falls within the scope of their employment, however it would seem less reasonable if an employer delivers an input as to what may be posted on social media. The rule of thumb regarding social media posts will be the same as it is with any other off-duty conduct: is there a close nexus between the conduct and the business of the employer? In the recent case of Cliff v M-net, Mr Cliff was dismissed for a post he made on social media which has no relation to his employment with M-net. Mr Cliff claimed that his freedom of speech is being infringed and that he did not act in a racist manner as contended by M-net. This case provides a distinct example of how off-duty use of social media can influence and even ruin an employment relationship. M-net’s argument was that Mr Cliff put their company in a bad light and damaged their relationship and that it would do the company a great dishonour to longer associate themselves with someone like Mr Cliff and that keeping Mr Cliff in their employment would give the broader public the idea that they support his views. M-net’s argument was not yet considered, because the main issue before the court was whether Mr

In the case of EThekwini Municipality v South African Municipal Workers Union Obo Mlambo and Others, the applicant in his off-duty conduct contravened a workplace policy. What distinguishes this case from other cases is the fact that there was a policy in place that prohibited specific conduct after hours. In the other cases there was no policy that regulated specific off-duty conduct. It will be necessary to review the terms of the policy in order to determine whether such a policy is fair and reasonable. The court was however of the opinion that the policy was fair and reasonable considering the scope of his