After being fired from a spa through Facebook, esthetician Crystal Bell spawned a debate over "cyber-sacking" and what employers owe their employees during a time when electronic approaches have become such commonly used mediums for communication.
Referring to the idea of using electronic communication for termination, Bell said, "I think it's going to be the way of the future, but for me it's not the human way to go.”
Bell, a single mother from Kelowna (a city in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, Canada) had only been an employee of the spa for two weeks after being hired through Facebook, before being fired through the social network.
Bell’s former boss, Susan Woehrie, chose to make the termination after Bell’s absence at a staff meeting held on her day off.
Woerhie defended her communication decision, explaining that she tried to use the phone after the staff meeting, but couldn't get in touch with Bell.
"I just wanted to have it dealt with that evening," Woerhie said. "I didn't want to deal with it at the shop when other people were around."
Bell was at the hospital with her sick mother during the staff meeting. She had no minutes left on her cell phone and no room for new voicemails on her answering machine at home. As a result, Woerhie chose to send a message to Bell's private Facebook inbox.
After receiving the message, Bell got dressed and went to the spa anyway, thinking she had been subject of a joke.
“I think using any kind of texting or e-mailing to let people go is the coward's way out,” Bell said.
The situation has created several online debates and discussions. Those interested, from employment lawyers to human resources professionals, have been blogging about the use of electronic communication for letters of termination.
Robert Smithson, a Vancouver labor lawyer, belongs to the group as one of those willing to share an opinion on the idea: "There are both legalistic and humanistic reasons to not be resorting to e-mail or other electronic forms of communication to terminate employment…A prudent employer would say, 'This might not be the most friendly, sympathetic manner, so we're going to avoid that.'"
The Wallace decision, a 1997 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, serves as an example of how terminations executed with certain levels of disregard for the to-be-terminated, can result in awards (to the formerly employed) for "bad faith" damages.
The Wallace decision did not deliberate over firing through electronic communication, but Bell was ready to bring forth this deliberation when she contacted a lawyer to discuss her damages. Unfortunately for Bell's case, the lawyer let her know that this case would not work because her employment at the spa had only lasted for two weeks.