Angry faces over ban on emojis in ice cream pay dispute

EWIN HANNAN
September 25, 2017
The Australian

Hundreds of Streets ice cream workers risk disciplinary action if they post angry “emojis” on social media in protest at the company’s threats to cut their pay and conditions.

Multinational giant Unilever, which owns iconic Streets brands including Magnum, Paddle Pop and Golden Gaytime, has also warned employees against criticising the company’s tactics to family and friends. 

Unilever has been accused by ACTU secretary Sally McManus of “industrial blackmail” after applying to the Fair Work Commission to terminate an enterprise agreement at its Minto plant in southwestern Sydney.

The move, which sparked a union-organised social media back­lash against the company, would result in workers suffering a significant loss in pay and conditions if the employees were forced back onto the award safety net

In a memo to staff, obtained by The Australian, Unilever’s sourcing unit director, Erika Buzasi, provided the company’s “official answers” to employee questions about their communication on ­social media. 

Asked if the “expression of emotion by emojis (like anger etc)’’ under a post can be considered as breaching company policy, Mr Buzasi says: “Yes, this is captured under our social media policy if the post is related to a company matter.” 

According to the company, failure to comply with its code of business principles and code policies is “taken very seriously by Unilever and may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal and legal action”.

NSW secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union Steve Murphy accused Unilever of trying to gag employees criticising the company’s attempt to cut their pay and conditions.

“It’s bad enough that workers are being threatened with a 46 per cent pay cut,’’ he said. “Now, workers can’t even hit the sad react button. Employees should have the right to speak out when their employer is behaving badly. Gagging workers is unAustralian and unfair­.”

The company position comes after the Turnbull government warned last month that public servants risked disciplinary action for “liking” anti-government posts or privately emailing negative mat­erial to a friend from home.

In her memo, Mr Buzasi is asked about employees “talking about the situation at the company” with family and friends.

Beyond their own social media accounts, she said employees had an ongoing responsibility to uphold Unilever’s values and code of conduct “at all times”. “That extends to the way they talk about the company in all settings,’’ she writes.

Negative posts about the company and sharing negative social media posts by others were also in breach of company policy.

Asked whether negative private messages sent on social media breached company policy, she writes: “When using social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube in a personal capacity, employees should remember their responsibility to Unilever continues. Employees should not engage in activities which bring Unilever into disrepute.”

Mr Murphy said the memo showed the AMWU’s social media campaign targeting Streets and Unilever was beginning to bite. 

“The company wants to shut down the right of workers to express opinions when they are not even on the job,’’ he said. “We believe it is this jackboot approach that really brings Unilever and Streets into disrepute and as warmer weather begins to hit and ice cream sales jump, we are hoping Unilever will come to its senses and withdraw its bid to cut workers’ pay and conditions.” 

A Unilever spokesman said: “Like most businesses in Australia, Unilever has a social media policy that applies to all employees, up to and including senior management. It is consistent with our core business principles and includes an expectation that people act responsibly and with integrity when publicly discussing or reacting to any work-related matter.’’ 

The AMWU said Minto workers rejected a proposed agreement that would have seen new employees placed on inferior pay and conditions compared with existing workers.

But Unilever said the AMWU had backed a new agreement before it was voted down by employees last month.

The company said production costs at Minto were uncompetitive when compared with other ice cream manufacturers and there was a need to introduce more flexible working conditions 

Ms McManus has said if workers were forced back onto the award, their pay would be slashed by up to 46 per cent.

Workers would also lose existing limits on overtime, annual, personal, parental and compassionate leave, redundancy conditions, and protections against use of labour hire and contractors. Unilever is the latest high-profile company to apply to terminate an agreement.