Criticising your company, expressing your beliefs or joking with colleagues: to what extent does freedom of expression apply in the workplace? Our expert Pierre Nilles explains.
Can you express your opinions, assert your beliefs or criticise your employer? In principle, yes... but not without conditions. While freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not absolute. ‘It is a fundamental right, but it is modulated within the framework of the contractual relationship and subordination’, says Pierre Nilles, partner and associate at Fidal. In the workplace, this right is combined with other obligations, essentially compliance with the employment contract and its implications. In short, you can’t say everything, however you like, wherever you like.
Right to speak, duty to remain loyal
In the workplace, employees are free to say what they want, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. ‘An employee has every right to express criticism or disagreement’, says Pierre Nilles. However, there is a framework to respect: that of subordination and contractual loyalty. So there's no question of openly undermining your employer or causing discord within the team. "Constructive criticism is not a problem. What's problematic is the intention to harm or denigrate".
More generally, the law sets clear boundaries: discrimination, harassment, affront to dignity, etc. Even in a relaxed environment, irony is no protection against the law. 'You can't justify everything with humour', the lawyer warns. Courts are increasingly reluctant to accept “it was only a joke” as a defence – especially when such humour conceals sexist or racist stereotypes.
Neutrality, a (not so) universal principle
What about personal beliefs? Another grey zone. Can you wear a visible religious symbol at work? Here again, it all depends on the context. "Contrary to popular belief, neutrality is not a general principle applicable to all companies. It mainly concerns the public sector and government employees, who must guarantee an equal service to all citizens", explains the expert. In the private sector, it's a different matter: a company can only ban religious symbols if it can prove that the ban is necessary, justified, and proportionate – for example, if the role involves contact with the public.
In December 2024, the Labour Court of Liège reiterated these requirements. A company had imposed a general ban on all religious symbols, without demonstrating any real risk of disturbance. The court ruled that the undocumented potential for tension did not justify the neutrality policy. As a result, the decision was deemed discriminatory.
To avoid conflict, Pierre Nilles personally believes more in an inclusive and liberal approach: "Company policy must always be clear, justified and proportionate. Above all, it should, in my opinion, promote an inclusive corporate culture. Through codes of conduct, charters or diversity policies, we can promote plurality as an asset, not a threat".
Social media: the cost of expressing yourself online
What about after office hours? Is it possible to express yourself freely on social networks from the comfort of your sofa on a Friday evening? It depends. According to the lawyer and associate, an employee who expresses personal views online is, in principle, not representing their employer – provided they are not speaking on the company’s behalf or in a professional context.
Pierre Nilles illustrates this with a case that made headlines in Italy a few years ago: "An Italian lawyer stated on the radio that his firm would never employ homosexual people. Even though he had no decision-making power, and the firm was not hiring at the time, his public statement was considered binding on the employer, as he was perceived as representing the company. The law firm was found guilty of discriminatory hiring practices".
In some cases, even a simple comment on a publication can be interpreted as taking a stance, especially if it undermines the image or values of the organisation or the standards of a democratic society (racist or sexist comments on social networks, for example, could, even if they are made in a private context, contravene the expectations of the employment contract).
Clashing opinions: prevention is better than cure
Can anything be discussed at work? In theory, freedom of expression also applies among colleagues. In reality, however, certain sensitive subjects (such as political or social disagreements) can create friction and generate tension. 'As soon as the exchanges generate discomfort, we enter the field of psychosocial risks', the lawyer observes. It is then up to the employer to intervene, not to moderate ideas, but to protect the working climate.
The problem? What is considered socially acceptable evolves. It's the famous “Overton window”: what seemed extreme yesterday can become mainstream today, and vice versa. As a result, we communicate more, faster, and misunderstandings sometimes explode in the middle of an open office space.
So what’s the solution? Neither censorship nor laissez-faire. The aim is not to sielnce opinions, but to structure them within a clear framework conducive to dialogue. that fosters constructive dialogue. Sanctions should not be automatic – they are a last resort if dialogue breaks down and the team dynamic is at risk.
In conclusion, should freedom of expression be included in internal regulations? Not necessarily," concludes Pierre Nilles. However, it is in the interests of companies to define a clear framework, via charters or codes of conduct, to prevent excesses without restricting speech. Because while freedom of expression has its limits, it remains a cornerstone of social dialogue.