• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
William Fry Social Media In The Workplace A Report On Irish Businesses May 2013
 

William Fry Social Media In The Workplace A Report On Irish Businesses May 2013

on

  • 1,471 views

Social media in the workplace - a report based on research in Ireland conducted in early 2013 by the employment law division of WilliamFry.ie. Access the press release for the report here ...

Social media in the workplace - a report based on research in Ireland conducted in early 2013 by the employment law division of WilliamFry.ie. Access the press release for the report here http://bgn.bz/wfsmr

I have uploaded the report here in the event that the link changes on the William Fry website as it is a helpful report for all HR professionals and senior leaders in Ireland.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,471
Views on SlideShare
1,467
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
5
Comments
0

2 Embeds 4

http://www.pinterest.com 3
http://pinterest.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    William Fry Social Media In The Workplace A Report On Irish Businesses May 2013 William Fry Social Media In The Workplace A Report On Irish Businesses May 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • Social Media in the WorkplaceWilliam fryemploymentreport 2013
    • CONTENTS• Overview 3• Recruitment 4• Ownership 5• Productivity 8• Brand Protection 9• Disciplinary Issues 10• Social Media Policy 12• About William Fry 15• About the Research 16
    • - 3 -Alicia ComptonEmployment & Benefits PartnerPhone: + 353 1 639 5376Email: alicia.compton@williamfry.ieCatherine O’FlynnEmployment & Benefits AssociatePhone: + 353 1 639 5136Email: catherine.o’flynn@williamfry.ieOverviewWelcome to the William Fry Employment Report 2013 whichfocuses on social media in the workplace.Social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook andTwitter have revolutionised communication. There have beenmany reports on social media in the workplace internationallybut the Irish workplace has not been extensively reviewed.We commissioned a survey to gain an insight into how socialmedia is being used in the Irish workplace. The survey wasconducted with 200 Irish based companies, both domesticand international, and 500 employees.The purpose of our report is to help employers managesocial media in the workplace effectively, by pre-emptingand avoiding potential employment issues.Our survey examines a number of areas in connection withthe use of social media in the workplace, including itsimportance in the recruitment process, its effect onproductivity, ownership of social media accounts and theircontents and disciplinary issues.Our findings show that evidence on social media of behavioursuch as bad language or discriminatory views of jobcandidates would influence employers in the decision to hire.In relation to Recruitment we consider the extent to whichemployers can screen the online activity of job candidates.A key emerging issue for employers is the Ownership of socialmedia accounts and/or contacts on those accounts. The mostsignificant challenge is what happens to work-related contactswhen the employee leaves the organisation. The question ofownership should be dealt with as early on in the employmentrelationship as possible.We also examine issues around Productivity and whetheraccess to social media sites during work hours decreasesproductivity.Business is turning to social media to enhance andstrengthen brands. Social media facilitates onlinerelationships with potential customers or clients. Toassist Brand Protection, employers should set out clearguidelines on communications on social media.Disciplinary Issues may arise in connection with employees’social media activity. Employers may be held vicariously liablefor acts of bullying or harassment of employees carried out bytheir colleagues on social media sites.We have set out best practice for putting in place aSocial Media Policy and list the issues which should beaddressed when preparing a social media policy. Giventhe speed of developments in this area, the socialmedia policy should be updated regularly and effectivelycommunicated to all employees.The overriding message for employers is to implement asocial media policy tailored to the needs of their organisation,to review that policy regularly, to ensure that employees areaware of the policy and understand how it affects them andto enforce it consistently.We hope you find this report interesting and informative andwe welcome your feedback.
    • - 4 -RECRUITMENTOur survey results indicate that employerswould be influenced by evidence on socialmedia of behaviour such as discriminatoryviews and bad language when it comes tojob applicants. Social media provides asignificant resource for recruiters in termsof sourcing candidates but is it acceptableto use social media to screen candidates?Social media screening has become an issuein other jurisdictions to the extent that severalUS States have enacted legislation prohibitingemployers from requesting login details of thesocial media accounts of job applicants.There is no Irish legislation prohibiting anemployer requesting login details. However,when an employer reviews a job candidate’ssocial media accounts, two issues shouldbe considered.Candidates are protected by the employmentequality legislation which prohibitsdiscrimination on the grounds of gender, civilor family status, sexual orientation, religiousbelief, age, disability, race or nationality ormembership of the Traveller community.An employer could be liable under equalitylegislation if a candidate can show that thereason he/she was not offered a job wasconnected with material relevant to oneof the prohibited grounds and seen by theprospective employer on the candidate’ssocial media accounts.• If reviewing a candidate’s socialmedia account forms part ofan organisation’s recruitmentprocess, let candidates knowthat this will take place, explainwhat form it will take and why itis considered necessary havingregard to the nature of the job.• Ensure that information sourcedfrom social media is obtainedand retained in accordance withdata protection requirements.• Ensure that any decision not torecruit an individual is not basedupon any of the discriminatorygrounds covered by employmentequality legislation.Best Practice86%of employers say the useof bad language on acandidate’s social mediaaccount would affect theirdecision to hirethat candidate.81%of employers say theywould be negativelyinfluenced byinappropriate photos/videos on a candidate’ssocial media account.82%of employers would benegatively influenced bydiscriminatory views ona candidate’s socialmedia account.Data protection legislation and guidanceissued by the Data Protection Commissionersuggests that employers must, at a minimum,advise candidates that online screening willtake place, explain what form it will takeand why screening is considered necessaryhaving regard to the nature of the job. Otherdata protection obligations, including howa candidate’s personal data gleaned in thescreening process should be stored andprotected from unnecessary dissemination,must also be considered.SCREENINGThe UK’s first Youth Police andCrime Commissioner, Paris Brown(17), recently resigned from her postfollowing criticism of messages postedby her on Twitter when she was agedbetween 14 and 16.The Police and Crime Commissionerresponsible for recruiting Ms Brownhas been criticised for not carryingout checks on social media beforeMs Brown’s appointment. TheCommissioner has suggested thatsuch checks are likely to be part offuture recruitment processes.
    • - 5 -OWNERSHIPOwnership of social media accounts, and ofthe contacts, friends or followers on thoseaccounts is an emerging issue for employers.As the economy recovers and movementincreases within the job market these issueswill arise more frequently.Customer or client-facing employees oftenset up social media accounts to reinforcecustomer/client relationships and may beencouraged to do so by their employer.Employees can amass a significant numberof contacts, friends or followers on socialmedia accounts. Who owns those work-related contacts and social media accountsand what happens to them when theemployee leaves the employment?An employer cannot claim ownership over allwork-related contacts simply because theyare work-related. Disputes between employersand employees over ownership of social mediamaterial are governed by contract and commonlaw principles developed through case law.There is no Irish case law on this issue to date,however developing UK and US case law mayindicate the approach the Irish courts will take.WHOSE CONTACT ISIT ANYWAY?The leading UK case involvingownership of LinkedIn contacts is HaysSpecialist Recruitment (Holdings)Limited v Ions (2008). Mr Ions leftHays to set up a rival agency. Hayssuspected that Mr Ions was usingconfidential information about clientsand contacts which he had copiedto his LinkedIn account during hisemployment. A search of Mr Ion’se-mail account revealed that, duringhis employment, Mr Ions had invitedtwo existing clients of Hays to join hisLinkedIn network.When deciding on the claim broughtby Hays for breach of contract theCourt considered that an employeerecording client contact detailswith a view to their future use in acompeting business was potentially abreach of the employee’s employmentof employers allowemployees to storework related contactson their personal socialmedia accounts.8%of employers know whatwork related contacts theiremployees have ontheir personal socialmedia accounts.3%61%of employees have workrelated contacts ontheir personal socialmedia accounts.obligations. Essentially, while an employermay authorise employees to gather contactdetails on their LinkedIn accounts, thatinformation is confidential informationand remains the property of the employer.This illustrates the distinction betweenownership of a LinkedIn account andownership of the information containedwithin that account.The Court directed disclosure of thosecontacts whose names and addressesMr Ions had taken from his work emailaddress book and all emails sent to orreceived by his LinkedIn account from theHays computer network whilst Mr Ions wasan employee of Hays. He was also orderedto disclose all documents, includinginvoices and emails, evidencing any useby him of the LinkedIn contacts and anybusiness obtained from them.
    • - 6 -of employers have discussedwith their employees the positionregarding work-related contactson social media accounts whenemployment ends.17%onlyAfter her employment was terminated,Edcomm, using Dr Eagle’s LinkedInpassword, accessed the account andchanged the password so that Dr Eaglecould no longer access the account.Edcomm then changed the accountprofile to display Dr Eagle’s successor’sname and photograph, although DrEagle’s honours, recommendationsand connections were not deleted. Forseveral weeks thereafter, a search for DrEagle on LinkedIn found the informationfor her replacement instead.The Court held in Dr Eagle’s favour andpointed out that Edcomm, althoughclearly concerned about its employees’social media presence, did not have apolicy in place determining who ownedthe accounts.LOCKED OUT OF LINKEDINIn March 2013, judgment was deliveredin a US case involving ownership of aLinkedIn account. In Eagle v Edcomm,Dr Eagle, former CEO of Edcomm, fileda complaint alleging that Edcommhijacked her LinkedIn account afterher employment was terminated. WhileDr Eagle was CEO of Edcomm, sheestablished a LinkedIn account withthe encouragement and assistance ofEdcomm. She used this account topromote Edcomm’s services, to fosterher professional reputation, to connectwith her family and to build social andprofessional relationships.OWNERSHIP
    • - 7 -We asked employers and employees to tell us who ownedthe followers, contacts and friends on employees’ personalsocial media accounts.The results show two very different points of view and asignificant degree of uncertainty in the minds of employersand employees.• Deal with ownership of work-related contacts on employer oremployee owned devices andsocial media accounts at the startof the employment relationship.• Set the boundary betweenpersonal and professionalcontacts and/or other importantbusiness information.• Amend contracts of employmentand staff handbooks so thatconfidential information and posttermination restrictions capturework-related contacts on socialmedia accounts.• Require employees not to addwork-related contacts to personalsocial media accounts or makeclear the basis on which they arepermitted to do so.• Require employees to deletework-related contacts fromsocial media accounts ontermination of employment.• Inform employees that they arenot permitted to hold themselvesout as employees on their socialmedia accounts once theiremployment has ended.I OWN52%UNSURE47%EMPLOYEROWNS 1%EMPLOYEEOWNS 24%EMPLOYEETHINKSI OWN63%UNSURE31%EMPLOYEROWNS 6%WE OWN25%UNSURE61%EMPLOYEEOWNS 14%EMPLOYEETHINKSEMPLOYERTHINKSTwitter®I OWN37%UNSURE56%EMPLOYEROWNS 7%WE OWN29%UNSURE57%EMPLOYEEOWNS 14%EMPLOYEETHINKSEMPLOYERTHINKSFacebook®LinkedIn®Best PracticeUNSURE61%WE OWN15%EMPLOYERTHINKSOWNERSHIP
    • - 8 -PRODUCTIVITY81%of employees accesssocial media sitesat work.47%of employers think thatsocial media access,while at work, increasesworkplace morale. 36% ofemployees agree.31%of employees accesssocial media sitesmultiple times a dayat work.42%of employers allow someform of social mediaaccess while at work.Our survey indicates that 47% of employeesbelieve that access to social media duringwork hours decreases productivity. It isinteresting that only 38% of employers agree.As the majority of employees access socialmedia from personal devices while at workthere is limited value in imposing absoluterestrictions upon employees accessing socialmedia on employer-owned devices.If an employer is concerned about anemployee’s productivity, whether it isconnected with suspected high levels ofsocial media use during the working day,or for any other reason, these concernsshould be addressed through theimplementation of a performanceimprovement plan.ON AVERAGEEMPLOYEESSPEND56MINUTESper working dayon social media sites.• Set realistic limits foremployees regarding theaccessing of social media sitesat work whether on employeror employee owned devices.• Deal with concerns aboutproductivity due to suspectedsocial media usage at workin the same way as any otherperformance issue is dealtwith - by putting a performanceimprovement plan in place.Best Practice
    • - 9 -Business is increasingly turning to socialmedia to enhance reputation and grow.Social media provides unique opportunitiesto connect and network with potentialcustomers or clients that were simply notavailable before.A key issue for employers is to identify howemployees will participate in this processand to set out clear guidelines as to how,what and by whom information relating tothe employer’s business is communicatedon social media. Employees shouldbe encouraged to report commentsconcerning the business made onsocial media to a central point withintheir organisation.The potential for an organisation tointeract negatively with customers andclients on social media at a speed and ona scale previously unimagined is also anissue for employers.BRAND PROTECTION38%of employees say theywould do nothing if theycame across negativecomments about theiremployer on socialmedia sites.56%of employers encouragetheir employees to reportnegative comments aboutthe employer.• If employees are encouragedor required to use businesssocial media accounts ensurethat account passwordsand login details are notchanged by employeeswithout permission.• Define who is permitted to postor comment on business socialmedia accounts.• Consider whether postingsor comments need to bemonitored in advance to ensureappropriate content.• Ensure employees are clearabout what to do if they readcomments about the employeron social media.• Ensure employees are notpermitted to post confidentialinformation on personal socialmedia accounts and areclear as to what confidentialinformation means.• Decide whether employees maypost work related photographsor comments on personal socialmedia accounts.of employers are notconcerned that confidentialbusiness informationmay be posted on socialmedia sites by employees.73%Best Practicereputation riskIn a much viewed YouTube video, anemployee of Domino’s Pizza was seenpreparing a sandwich for delivery.It was clear from the video and theaccompanying narrative by a co-workerthat the sandwich was being preparedwithout regard to hygiene or foodstandards and in a way that would bedamaging to the employer’s brand.Within days of the video being postedonline it had been viewed more thana million times. Both employeeswere dismissed.In a case involving a UK supermarketchain, an employee was dismissedfor posting a video on YouTube ofcolleagues having a fight with plasticbags. The video clip was viewed byeight people, three of whom were themanagers of the supermarket wherethe employee worked and who took thedecision to dismiss the employee.The Employment Tribunal held thatthe dismissal was unfair since therewas no actual risk of reputationaldamage to the supermarket.
    • - 10 -Employers may have regard to employeeconduct which takes place on socialmedia sites. Conduct which is linked ordamaging to the employer, has an impacton the employee’s ability to do his/herjob or causes offence to other employees,requires action. Although 51% ofemployers and 40% of employees saythat activity on social media shouldbe treated differently if it takes placeoutside of working hours, the sameconsiderations apply regardless of whenthe activity takes place.When an employer is consideringtaking disciplinary action against anemployee, the employee may say thathe/she thought their social mediaaccount was private or that he/she has aright to freedom of expression. In fact,employees should not assume that postsor comments will remain private giventhe nature of the internet. In addition,the freedom of expression enjoyed bythe employee must be balanced againstthe right of the employer to protect itsreputation and to observe its dutyof care to other employees.EMPLOYEE ACTIVITY ONSOCIAL MEDIAKiernan v Awear (2007) was one of the firstIrish cases to raise the issue of social mediain the workplace. The case involved theposting of comments by Ms Kiernan abouther branch manager on the social networkingsite Bebo, outside of working hours. Theremarks were brought to management’sattention by a customer. Ms Kiernan, whohad a previously clean disciplinary record,was dismissed for gross misconduct. TheEmployment Appeals Tribunal held that thesanction of dismissal was disproportionateto the offence.A different determination was made inO’Mahony v PJF Insurances Limited (2010),a case which involved an employee postingdisparaging comments about the employerand a director of the organisation on herFacebook page. Ms O’Mahony was dismissedand challenged the dismissal beforethe Employment Appeals Tribunal. TheEmployment Appeals Tribunal held that theposts were personally offensive to one of thedirectors in particular and that the breach oftrust was so significant that Ms O’Mahony’sposition became untenable.Employers may be vicariously liablefor acts of bullying, harassment ordiscrimination of employees carried outby their colleagues on social media sites.It will not be a defence for the employerto say that such acts were carried outwithout their consent or knowledge. Itwill be helpful to a defence however, toshow that the employer took practicalsteps to prevent the act complained oftaking place. Key to this would be tohave in place a clear and comprehensivesocial media policy which identifies andrequires appropriate conduct concerningcolleagues, both during and outside ofworking hours, on social media sites.As with any disciplinary matter,sanctions for misconduct in relationto social media must be proportionateto the circumstances and thedisciplinary process must be fair.In Toland v Marks & Spencer (2013)Ms Toland was awarded €18,000compensation in her claim for unfairdismissal. Ms Toland was dismissedfor a breach of the organisation’s socialnetworking policy. In giving evidence tothe Employment Appeals Tribunal, MsToland said that her participation in socialnetworking sites was limited and that shedid not intend to hurt or disrespect anyone.Ms Toland did accept that by commentingon posts by other staff members she didparticipate in conversations regardless ofher intentions.As Marks & Spencer could not provide thewitness who made the decision to dismissthe employee at the hearing or any notes ofthe disciplinary meeting, the Tribunal treatedthe case as an uncontested unfair dismissal.However, the Tribunal did accept that therewas some contribution to the dismissalby Ms Toland as a result of her “carelessmisuse of a social networking site and thecompensation awarded reflects this”.Disciplinary Issues
    • - 11 -VICARIOUS LIABILITYThe UK case of Otomewo v CarphoneWarehouse (2012) illustrates theimportance of having an effectivesocial media policy in place to dealwith claims of vicarious liability.Mr Otomewo was a manager in aCarphone Warehouse store. Duringworking hours, two of Mr Otomewo’scolleagues took his iPhone without hisconsent and used it to post a statusupdate on his Facebook page saying“finally came out of the closet, I amgay and proud”.Mr Otomewo brought a claim againstCarphone Warehouse allegingharassment on the ground of sexualorientation. At an EmploymentTribunal hearing it was acknowledgedthat Mr Otomewo was not gay and thathis colleagues did not believe that hewas gay. However, it was accepted thatthe status update caused Mr Otomewoembarrassment and distress as it couldbe seen by his friends and family.The Employment Tribunal found thatit was reasonable for Mr Otomewo tobe embarrassed and distressed by thestatus update on his Facebook page. Itwas unwanted and an unnecessary andunwarranted intrusion into his private lifeon a public space, amounting to sexualorientation harassment. The EmploymentTribunal found that the comments weremade in the course of employmentand that Carphone Warehouse, as theemployer, was liable for their actions.of employershavedisciplinedemployeesbased on theiractions onsocial media.of employeessay theirorganisationhas disciplinedemployeesbased on socialmedia activity.21%26%• Ensure your social media policystates what is/is not permitted,otherwise it will be difficult todiscipline an employee for anysocial media policy breach.•  The social media policy shouldcross-refer to other relevantHR policies.•  Before taking disciplinaryaction against an employee,consider whether there is awork-related context and/or whether the activity inquestion actually affectsthe work relationshipand/or impacts upon theemployer’s reputation.•  Regardless of what theemployee is thought to havedone, fair investigatory anddisciplinary procedures mustbe followed.•  Adopt a consistent andproportionate approach todisciplinary sanctions forbreach of social media policy.Best Practice
    • - 12 -SOCIAL MEDIA POLICYSocial media is an increasingly importantpart of the personal lives of employees and ofbusiness life and it is here to stay. Employersshould consider the issues social mediaraises in their workplace and regulate itsuse and application. Key to this is to have acomprehensive, tailored social media policy inplace and to ensure that employees read andunderstand it.Where employees are required to use theirown devices for work the social media policyshould cover BYOD (Bring Your Own Device).Irrespective of whether employees use theirown or employer-owned devices, employersshould require employees to use privacyand lock settings to minimise the risk ofunauthorised access to those devices.POLICY - WHY BOTHER?In Walker v Bausch & Lomb (2009) thepolicy at issue was the employer’s intranetusage policy. However, the decidingpoint holds good for social media. In thisIrish case an employee posted to theorganisation’s intranet a message that hadserious implications in terms of publicityand workplace industrial relations. Theemployee was dismissed and challengedthe dismissal. The Employment AppealsTribunal found that the organisation’sinvestigation was fair but that thedismissal was not. A factor in the decisionwas that there was no proof that theemployee had ever received or reviewedthe organisation’s intranet policy.Crisp v Apple (2011) is a UK caseconcerning Mr Crisp who worked atan Apple store and posted derogatorycomments on his Facebook page abouthis work and certain Apple products.These comments were brought to theattention of Mr Crisp’s manager.Mr Crisp was dismissed for grossmisconduct and challenged hisdismissal. The Employment Tribunalupheld the dismissal.In arriving at its decision, the EmploymentTribunal was influenced by the fact thattraining and policies on the use of socialmedia had been provided to Mr Crispby Apple.43%of employees areunsure whether theirorganisation has a socialmedia policy.84%of employers say thatsocial media is importantto their organisation.Only 51%of employers have asocial media policy.Of the employees who are required touse personal devices for work, 60%say that their employer does not havea BYOD policy in place.
    • - 13 -Employers-Is your policyvery wellunderstoodby employees?51%NO49%YESEmployees-Do you fullyunderstand yourorganisation’ssocial mediapolicy?47%NO53%YES1%Poster3%Update ofContract10%Word of Mouth16%Manual21%Intranet36%Training46%EmailHow is your organisation’s social media policycommunicated to employees?
    • - 14 -• Define the scope - apply it to personaland professional use on personal andwork devices; cover activity inside andoutside working hours.• Consider allowing social media accessin moderation – set realistic limitsregarding usage during work hours;confirm that use of social media duringworking hours, in breach of limits set,may constitute misconduct.• Provide guidelines for employeecommunications in social media -advise employees to keep personal andwork-related social media activitiesseparate; state that employees arepersonally responsible for their posts;advise employees to think before theyengage and be mindful of third parties’rights; inform employees of the need touse privacy settings/lock devices.• Cross-refer to other relevant workplacepolicies - e.g. disciplinary, bullying andharassment, equality, email and internetand data protection.• Address confidential/sensitive information- remind employees they must not discussclients, business partners or colleagueswithout permission outside the organisationor post any information that is not public.• Reputation management - confirm whatemployees should do if they see anyinaccurate or negative comments aboutthe organisation on social media.• Ownership - confirm whether theorganisation has a proprietary interestin any accounts and/or informationgenerated by employees on social media.• Address consequences - confirm thatfailure to adhere to the social media policymay lead to disciplinary action.policy guidelinesWhen preparing your organisation’s social media policy the following points should be considered:• Implement a social mediapolicy based upon actualbusiness needs, bearing inmind what role social mediahas to play in the business.• Ensure the social mediapolicy is reviewed regularlyas developments may quicklyrender it out of date.• Include the employer’sposition on BYOD whereemployees are required orpermitted to use their owndevices for work.• Ensure the social mediapolicy is communicatedeffectively to all employees.Retain proof that it hasbeen received, readand understood.Best Practice
    • - 15 -William Fry is a leading full service Irish law firm with offices in Dublin, London, New Yorkand Mountain View, California. Our client-focused service combines technical excellencewith commercial awareness and a practical, constructive approach to business issues.We advise leading domestic and international corporations, financial institutions andgovernment organisations. We regularly act on complex, multi-jurisdictional transactionsand commercial disputes. Strong client relationships and high quality advice are thehallmarks of our business.Our Employment & Benefits Team’s areas of expertise include:• Advising on all legal issues relating to the employment relationship• Representing clients before courts and tribunals in discrimination claims, unfairdismissal cases, breach of contract actions, injunction proceedings and prosecutions• Industrial relations• Advising on employment and pension issues in business sales, group reorganisations,insolvencies and outsourcings• Advising on all aspects of pensions law for employers, trustees, pension product providersand individuals• Employee share plans• Providing bespoke employment law training sessions for HR personnel• Advising on health and safety mattersOur clients include many leading multinational and Irish companies, pension schemetrustees and public sector organisations. Our team has advised on the employment andpensions aspects of many of the major corporate transactions in Ireland in recent years. Wehave successfully represented clients in a number of High Court and Supreme Court casesin which the judgments handed down have clarified key points of Irish employment law.Recent directory commentary includes:“Practice head Boyce Shubotham is ‘tactically astute in all his dealings’, Maura Roe‘remains calm and focused’, and Alicia Compton is ‘excellent’.” (Legal 500 EMEA, 2013)“A well-connected practice that really tries to understand its clients. I have yet to give thelawyers a scenario which has stumped them - you can always find an expert in your area.”(Chambers Europe, 2013)“William Fry is fabulous. It understands the issues clients face and ensures transactionsprogress smoothly...” “Everyone we deal with is just superb. We value the team’s judgementand view them as colleagues” (Chambers Europe, 2012)“William Fry’s ‘first class’ team is capable of ‘devising and delivering a solution’ that clientsare happy with.” (Legal 500 EMEA, 2012)Boyce ShubothamPartnerT. +353 1 639 5362E. boyce.shubotham@williamfry.ieAlicia ComptonPartnerT. +353 1 639 5376E. alicia.compton@williamfry.ieMaura RoePartnerT. +353 1 639 5246E. maura.roe@williamfry.ieMichael WolfePartnerT. +353 1 639 5204E. michael.wolfe@williamfry.ieLiam ConnellanPartnerT. +353 1 639 5110E. liam.connellan@williamfry.ieCatherine O’FlynnAssociateT. +353 1 639 5136E. catherine.oflynn@williamfry.ieAisling ButlerAssociateT. +353 1 639 5178E. aisling.butler@williamfry.ieLorna OsbourneAssistantT. +353 1 489 6408E. lorna.osbourne@williamfry.ieCONTACTMaryrose DillonAssociateT. +353 1 489 6520E. maryrose.dillon@williamfry.ieLouise HarrisonAssociateT. +353 1 489 6580E. louise.harrison@williamfry.ieLouise MooreAssistantT. +353 1 489 6526E. louise.moore@williamfry.ieCiara RuaneAssistantT. +353 1 489 6644E. ciara.ruane@williamfry.ieNichola HarkinAssistantT. +353 1 489 6616E. nichola.harkin@williamfry.ieMary GreaneyAssistantT. +353 1 639 5358E. mary.greaney@williamfry.ieAnne O’ConnellAssociateT. +353 1 639 5286E. anne.oconnell@williamfry.ieABOUT WILLIAM FRYFollow us on twitter@WFEmploymentLaw
    • - 16 -The research upon which this report is based was undertaken by Amárach Research. Twoseparate surveys were conducted, one among employers and one among employees oforganisations operating in Ireland with 50 employees or more. A range of questions relating tosocial media in the workplace was asked of both groups to allow for an employer and employeeperspective to be captured. A total of 200 employers were surveyed via telephone interviewsand 500 employees were interviewed online. All interviews were conducted in February 2013.Amárach Research is a full service market research and consultancy firm operating inIreland since the 1980’s. Amárach Research is proud to be fully Irish owned, run and whollyindependent. Amárach provides a range of research and consultancy services for blue chip andpublic sector clients who are seeking to gain a competitive advantage through understandingtheir customers and markets in more detail. Amárach Research brings clarity to complex issuesthrough best in class research and analytic methods.ABOUT THE RESEARCH
    • A selection of the clients of our Employment & Benefits Team“A well-connected practice that really tries to understand its clients. I have yet to give the lawyersa scenario which has stumped them – you can always find an expert in your area.”Chambers Europe, 2013
    • notes
    • williamfry.iewww.williamfry.ie Copyright © William Fry 2013. All rights reserved.The material contained in this publication is provided for information purposes onlyand does not constitute legal or other professional advice. It does not take account of specific circumstancesand cannot be considered a substitute for specific legal or other professional adviceDublin . London . New York . Mountain View, CA.