The intersection between social media activity and employment is an emerging global issue. This article examines the cultural, economic and technical milieu that has generated contested social media misconduct dismissals in Australia and South Africa. Through an analysis of 42 Australian and 97 South African decisions, it is argued that the ubiquitous, enduring and open nature of social media affects employment quite differently depending on country specific factors. In Australia, the absence of entrenched political rights has meant that employee social media use is not subject to reasonable expectations of privacy. However, there is also tolerance for a certain level of larrikin behaviour. In South Africa, the existence of enshrined rights manifests differently in the context of social media dismissal. Within a culturally diverse population with deeply fractured race relations, the decisions reveal a White minority still perpetuating dominance over a historically disadvantaged Black workforce.

Social media has transformed various aspects of daily life, particularly influencing communication and interaction in both physical and digital spaces. The South African employment relationship is no exception. Social media also creates opportunities for the articulation of employee voice. Through the content analysis of 118 South African first-instance social media misconduct dismissal decisions, this paper argues that employees use social media as a mechanism to express dissenting employee voice. There is evidence of individual employee voice notwithstanding employers implementing rules and social media policies to curtail expressions of dissent. It also persists despite the dismissal of employees for expressing employee voice through social media. Significantly, employee voice in the form of racialised speech badmouthing and cyber-criticising employers continues in the digital realm despite the legislative prohibition of hate speech. Despite high power disparities, the sample reveals a perfusion of individual e-voice by South African employees.

This article reports the findings of a qualitative study of first instance New Zealand employment tribunal decisions concerned with employee dismissal for social media misconduct. There are two main findings. The first relates to the legal approach to employee dismissal for social media misconduct developing in New Zealand. The decisions show New Zealand decision-makers are following the approach in other jurisdictions of treating social media misconduct dismissals as involving a balance between public and private considerations of employment conduct and calculating harm in the employment relationship. However, the decisions do not only track the emerging legal approach to social media misconduct in employment. The decisions are also a record of how social media is affecting employment relations within New Zealand. They are not only legal but also social records. The second finding relates to what the decisions reveal about employment and social media in New Zealand. The sample showed something different from other similar studies. In New Zealand, there was a large cluster of decisions where social media facilitated gender-based harassment. This finding resonates with wider research into New Zealand workplaces that suggests an enduring toxic culture where gender-based harassment is normalized.

Social media is changing the way humans create and exchange information. Not all social media communications are, however, civil: the ‘dark side’ of social media cultivates various ‘anti-social’ exchanges including hate speech. Parallel accelerating social media use has been an increase in decision-makers having to consider the legalities of dismissing employees for social media misconduct. This paper through an analysis of first instance South African employee dismissal decisions, identifies an economy of hate within South African workplaces. In 30% of social media misconduct decisions (120/400), employees were dismissed for circulating racialised hate speech. This hate speech took three forms. First was the use of animality discourse and animal metaphors to dehumanise colleagues and employers. Second, employees used words that had specific racist connotations within South Africa. Third, there was the direct deployment of signs or symbols connected with South Africa’s racialised past.