It may seem harmless fun but a recent case in America will have many bloggers wondering whether their boss is among their readers — and whether their internet revelations could cost them their job.

Ellen Simonetti, a hostess for the American airline Delta, had a blog in which she recounted the adventures of an anonymous hostess who worked for “Anonymous Airline”. The hostess was called the “Queen of the Sky”. So far, so innocuous. But Simonetti make the mistake of posting photographs of herself posing on board a Delta aircraft in her uniform. Some of the pictures were mildly provocative. For example, she posed on a passenger seat while allowing her skirt to ride up a couple of inches.

Delta did not see the funny side, and suspended her, even though only one of the pictures showed its logo on her uniform. She has since been sacked. Simonetti, who has complained to the US equivalent of the Equal Opportunities Commission, has said that she did not know that her blogging could put her job at risk.

As the internet expands, more people will keep blogs, and the chances that their employers might be mentioned can only increase. The blogger may not realise that employers are unlikely to approve of any use of the company name or logo, however harmless.

Many employers in Britain have e-mail or internet policies, which tend to relate to the use of these facilities at work. Some might specifically refer to defamatory or off-colour comments but this will generally be in the context of e-mails sent from work systems with the company name clearly identified.

What could an employer in the UK do if it is mentioned in a private blog compiled by an employee at home, in his or her own time and using private computer equipment? The thought of dismissing or disciplining somebody in a Queen of the Sky-type of case might seem Big Brotherish and could also provoke claims that a person’s right to freedom of expression is being infringed. However, most companies are very protective of their branding and reputation and would be unhappy about their names being taken in vain.

If an employee is sacked in these circumstances, the obvious recourse is a claim for unfair dismissal. Other options might be a discrimination claim, if the facts support that, or, where the employer is a public body, possibly a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Practical steps that an employer can take to protect itself and its reputation are as follows:

• Amend internet policies to cover blogging or any other internet activity, irrespective of whether this takes place during working hours or on company equipment. Of course, access to the internet cannot be denied, but an employer can make it clear that any actions on the part of the employee that potentially bring the company into disrepute may result in disciplinary action;
• Check contracts of employment and disciplinary procedures to ensure that bringing the employer into disrepute is one of the grounds on which an employee can be disciplined or dismissed;
• Apply any policy consistently and fairly, to avoid discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, and publicise its existence adequately.

  Even though employment law in Britain is different from that in America, some might think that Delta’s reaction was extreme. The action taken by an employer in such circumstances must be appropriate. An employment tribunal in the UK will look at all the circumstances. Dismissal for ill-advised blogging may well fall foul of the law — especially if the actual damage done seems negligible and the employer cannot demonstrate that it should have been clear to staff that mentioning the company name in blogs would not be tolerated. It can also result in even more adverse publicity than the blog caused in the first place. If Simonetti had simply been told not to post any more photographs, and warned that any further use of the Delta name or logo might result in disciplinary action, the chances are that the case and the blog would have stopped there. Now Delta faces a discrimination claim and the former employee’s blog continues to run, with the airline far less able to exercise any control over its content.

  Of course, there may be circumstances where dismissal might be appropriate. If the Queen of the Sky had posed in the cabin wearing nothing but a smile and a demonstration safety vest with a Delta logo clearly visible, she would probably struggle to get her claim off the ground.

  The author is an associate at Taylor Wessing

Times Recommends

• PM to sue Icesave to get savers' money
• Former UBS lawyer pays $6.5m to settle probe
• Test case over non-dom told to pay UK taxes