Social Media Conduct in Academia: Balancing Academic Freedom and Workplace Harmony

This article was originally published in Law360 Canada.

Recent Arbitration Decisions Illuminate Key Principles in Off-duty Conduct

The 2024 arbitration decisions in Board of Governors of Mount Royal University v Mount Royal Faculty Association [1] provide significant guidance on the intersection of social media conduct, academic freedom, and workplace harassment in the post-secondary context. The decisions offer crucial insights for institutional leadership and faculty associations regarding the scope and limitations of off-duty conduct in an increasingly digitized academic environment.

Background and Procedural History

The case centred on the termination of a tenured professor following social media interactions that were alleged to amount to harassment. At issue were various interactions between the professor and her colleagues, including through social media platforms. Several formal harassment complaints were filed and workplace investigations completed. The investigators dismissed the vast proportion of the allegations about the professor’s conduct but found that a small number of instances constituted harassment. As a result of the findings made in the workplace investigations, the professor was suspended for two weeks without pay and then subsequently terminated.

The faculty association filed multiple grievances challenging both the procedural fairness of the investigations and the appropriateness of the disciplinary measures, particularly in light of the professor’s academic freedom.

Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Decisions

Proportionality in Disciplinary Response

Significantly, the arbitrator found that both the two-week suspension without pay, and the eventual termination were disproportionate to the established misconduct. The arbitrator accepted that there was just cause to discipline the professor in respect of both complaints. However, the discipline selected by the university was disproportionate.

For the suspension, the arbitrator noted that only a subset of the social media interactions met the threshold for harassment and there was different treatment of similarly situated faculty members (with others merely receiving written warnings). The arbitrator substituted a letter of reprimand for the suspension.

With respect to the termination, the arbitrator confirmed that the concept of academic freedom is subject to limitations and that the employer may discipline for off-duty conduct, including social media communications. The arbitrator accepted that there was just cause to discipline the professor but concluded that the termination was disproportionate even though there was just cause for discipline. Again, the arbitrator noted that only a small portion of the allegations were substantiated and that there was significant overlap with the concerns that led to the two-week suspension, such that there was only a relatively short period of a few months where there were objectionable social media communications, rather than a failure to respond to the previous discipline imposed.

The Remedial Framework

The arbitrator's remedial approach warrants particular attention. Rather than ordering reinstatement – the traditional remedy for improper dismissal in a unionized environment – the arbitrator opted for monetary compensation. The arbitrator concluded that the professor’s continued employment at the university would not be viable for a number of reasons including the professor’s refusal to recognize the impact or demonstrate remorse for the “Twitter war” which involved some harassment, the reluctance of co-worker witnesses to have the professor return, and post-termination conduct showing hostility to colleagues and the university.

This departure from conventional remedial principles reflects a growing recognition that workplace climate and intra-faculty relationships may sometimes supersede traditional remedies in academic settings.

Implications for Academic Institutions and Faculty Associations

This decision carries several important implications for post-secondary institutional governance.

First, it reinforces the need for clear institutional policies regarding social media conduct, particularly considering the increasingly blurred boundaries between a professional and a personal digital presence.

Second, it highlights the importance of proportionality and consistency in disciplinary responses, particularly in cases involving multiple participants in problematic conduct.

Third, it demonstrates that arbitrators may prioritize workplace harmony over traditional remedial approaches when addressing serious disputes between colleagues in post-secondary settings.

Moving Forward: Best Practices

The decision provides a framework for developing more robust approaches to managing the digital conduct of people working in academic settings. Institutions may wish to consider:

• Developing comprehensive social media policies that clearly delineate acceptable conduct while respecting academic freedom;

• Implementing graduated disciplinary responses that maintain proportionality and consistency;

• Establishing clear protocols for investigating and addressing claims of digital harassment; and

• Creating mechanisms for early intervention to prevent escalation of conflicts between faculty members.

This case represents an important development in academic labour law, offering guidance on managing the complex intersection of academic freedom, professional conduct, and digital communications in contemporary academic settings.

[1] 2024 CanLII 68666 (AB GAA) (merits decision) and 2024 CanLII 119283 (AB GAA) (remedy decision).