Written by Fatin Ismail
The Instagram Story
It was not a press conference nor was it a viral exposé. It was a tired, private Instagram post made by a Cabin Crew after a gruelling 12-hour flight delay, when fatigue, hunger and frustration collided at the airport lounge.
The story, shared on a private Instagram account visible only to friends, complaining about the delay, the lack of proper rest facilities, and used one word that would later cost his job: “idiots”.
No hashtags, no tagging of the airline and no public call-out. Yet, that fleeting moment of digital venting would snowball into something far bigger, a dismissal for “serious misconduct.”
How a Private Story Became a Corporate Charge
Somehow, screenshots of the Instagram post made their way to airline’s management with the source never being disclosed. As a result, the cabin crew was suspended, issued with a notice to explain “inappropriate postings on (your) social media platforms” which ultimately culminated in termination of employment.
The airline argued that even private posts could damage its reputation, relying on internal social media policies that warned employees against negative online remarks.
The cabin crew member, however, did not deny posting. He admitted he was exhausted and frustrated, insisting that the post was private, truthful, and never meant to shame the airline. A police report was even lodged by him, alleging unauthorised access to his social media account. None of that mattered, at least not then.
The Industrial Court
Two years later, the Industrial Court was faced with a deceptively modern question:
Can a private Instagram rant, shared off-duty, to a closed audience, justify dismissal?
The Court dissected the post and asked, what did the airline really take offence to?
Under cross-examination, the answer was telling. It was not confidential leaks, lies or passenger complaints.
It boiled down to the word “idiots”, mention of a flight delay (which the airline admitted was true) and the use of the letters “AA”, which the airline assumed referred to itself
“Standards of Men, Not Angels”
In one of the most striking passages of the Award, the Industrial Court took guidance from the decision of Hanis Naz Azniza v Malaysia Airport Sdn Bhd [2024] which made reference to the Privy Council case of Jupiter General Insurance Co Ltd v Ardeshir Bomanji Shroff [1937] which reminded employers of a principle:
“… one must apply the standards of men and not of angels.”
The Industrial Court reminded itself that the dictum as a long accepted touchstone of industrial fairness, that discipline must be tempered with human understanding rather than moral absolutism. A tired employee blowing off steam, privately, after an objectively awful day, was not committing insubordination, nor was he committing a calculated act of defiance or malice. He was being human.
The Industrial Court noted that the post was not public, it caused no proven reputational harm, the facts complained of (delay, fatigue, late meals) were true, and no passenger, regulator or member of the public had complained.
To punish truth, the Industrial Court observed, merely because it embarrasses an employer, would be unjust.
Big Brother Has No Boarding Pass
Perhaps the most headline-worthy part of the decision was the Industrial Court’s rejection of what it called the “Big Brother” approach to employee discipline. Employers do not own their employees’ thoughts or their private Instagram stories.
Social media policies by companies cannot be stretched so far that they police private speech, criminalise emotional venting, or demand permanent online loyalty. Discipline must be proportionate. Dismissal should be reserved for misconduct that destroys trust and not a single, exhausted rant sent to friends.
The Industrial Court’s Finding
The Industrial Court held the dismissal of the employee by the airline was without just cause or excuse. Reinstatement was deemed impractical, but compensation was ordered by the Industrial Court which includes:
- backwages; and
- compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Reductions were imposed for contributory misconduct by the employee where the Industrial Court regards the phrase “idiots” as contributory misconduct by the employee, but it is not a dismissible offence.
Conclusion
In an era where screenshots travel faster than facts, this case is a cautionary tale for employers who discipline first and contextualise later. As for employees, it serves as a reminder that even private posts can escape their intended audience and that words, or posts, may be screenshotted and shared without their consent.
The full Industrial Court Award can be accessed here.
Published on 16 December 2025