Well despite being still suspended and having another meeting with his HR dept yesterday, they still havent given him their decision and said he will be getting a letter from them, but they wont tell him whats happening. i.e. final written warning or dismissal.
I think they're taking the mick by making him get 2 ferries and cycling 3 miles to tell him basically nothing.
I still think they're trying to find a way of canning him rather than pay his redundancy. He's only got a few weeks to go beofre he leaves.
I still think they're trying to find a way of canning him rather than pay his redundancy. He's only got a few weeks to go beofre he leaves
Can he negotiate something and use this to his advantage? Cough to being caught so long as he walks quietly & doesn't head to a tribunal, but he gets to keep his redundancy, and any future reference requests get a reference that reflects his ublemished time at the company - assuming it has been unblemished?
Does he have a union rep who can support him?
He probably shafted himself using the ambiguity of the phrase as a defence when he apologised for the comment, sounds like he is getting dismissed though, can't see they'd tell him to go away and wait for a letter if it was good news...
Trouble is, he hasn't got any bargaining chips has he? I hardly think he's in a position to be dictating term to his employers.
I think they're taking the mick by making him get 2 ferries and cycling 3 miles to tell him basically nothing.
Errr, aren't they still paying him full pay. If they want him in the office, he has to jump. If he hadn't been stupid he'd have had to go anyway!
Fair point I guess. Just seems a bit wasteful on time and money.
Still they're certainly getting him sweating about it.
One useful thing I was taught as a lad
Don't poo in your own nest.
Negative Facebook comments about work is a spectacular and public example of this.
Interesting one.
A few years ago I worked for a BIG company. The internet had just come up on people's desktops, and IT ran some new software, caught a couple of guys with adult entertainment in the logs.
Numpty 1 - owned up, sacked on the sport, gross misconduct.
Numpty 2 - swore blind it wasn't him, somebody must have jumped on his machine when he was in the loo. Disciplinary for leaving his machine logged on, probation, still in job.
Facebook comment that is 1. not on work machine 2. outside of work hours. Facebook well known for shonky security.
Numpty 2 defence could have worked here but too late I guess...
How many people are considering leaving FB as a result of this thread?
I am VERY careful about what I put up there, but it seems that you may be responsible for what you're friends say and think as well...
I'll think about it for 24 hours, but at the moment, I suspect I am going to delete my account (and twitter too)
I dont give a hoot what i write on facebook.
Then again if you really believe my name is hugh jardon, you deserve a shoeing.
I would have thought an employment tribunal would take a dim view of an employer so overtly using a technicality to get off paying him redundancy.
I think being made redundant is a pretty good mitigation for making an ill advised facebook comment, particularly as it didn't directly reference the company and was not done on work time or a work computer. Does he have any other blemishes on his record?
My opinion is that his employer is acting unreasonably. It is just my opinion though, I am no expert.
Bigyinn, I'd suggest your son in law requests a meeting and grovellingly apologises. Saying he is under stress at the moment and didn't mean it literally in that context but a 'bravado' comment.
I must admit, you never bite the hand that feeds you. That is gross misconduct.
Look at it this way, someone on your team or under you refers to his/her employer as a bunch of ****s. Now, how would you take that being referred to as a **** by someone junior to you? If said-employee had a question mark over any aspect of their ability/time keeping etc I'd see the remark in very poor taste.
Apparently there are 3 people who have been suspended on pay about this. My SiL, dinnerlady doris and I assume the original poster.
I suspect there's more to it than a simple 'off the cuff' remark
Now, how would you take that being referred to as a **** by someone junior to you?
Id like to think my shoulders were broad enough... unless of course your looking for the excuse to sack the guy saying it- handed to on a plate i think the saying goes
If they do sack him, he needs proper legal advice pronto, but I'd imagine that if it's being done as a costs saving measure, the threat of an ET or County Court claim against them would be enough to make them cough up a reduced redundancy payment and a reference.
U31, we were discussing this yesterday. MD said she wouldn't want to know what people really thought. I said I'd want to know as I'm open/wear my heart on my sleave with everyone.
Yup. give me a reason for thinking i'm a c word, and if its valid, so be it.
If not, it tells me volumes about the others opinions.
If they do sack him, he needs proper legal advice pronto, but I'd imagine that if it's being done as a costs saving measure, the threat of an ET or County Court claim against them would be enough to make them cough up a reduced redundancy payment and a reference
Or maybe someone doesnt like being referred to as a ****?
You wouldn't call an employee a **** so why expect to soak it up back?
Or is it all $ £ $ £?
Live by your actions, not where there is opportunity to get a kickback.
I've found out today, that this saga is from back in June / July.
It strikes me as a bit odd that it only cropped up 3 months later.
He has been rather apologetic to his HR people already. As far as I can gather yesterdays meeting really didnt establish anything that wasn't already known.
He's been in with the Union guy, so at least he' done that right!
Well done Hora, pat on head.
I was once told by an employment lawyer that you should think carefully about who you name in an employment tribunial. The general gist was to put down as many individuals as possible, as they would all have to turn up to the hearing. This is very costly to the company and has, apparantly, put companies off defending the case and they've just 'paid off' the person making the claim.
Don't know if it's true or not as I've never been in that position myself and don't intend to be if I can help it!
I've found out today, that this saga is from back in June / July.
It strikes me as a bit odd that it only cropped up 3 months later.
You'd hope that they only just found out
IIRC - they're obliged to act as soon as is possible after finding out that something has occurred, they can't drag things up that they initially did nothing about
How the company treat this will depend upon their Ts and Cs and in particular their disciplinary policy / guidelines and their ICT acceptable user policy if they have one. Most should have general provisions that cover this behaviour. I would expect there to be a formal investigation and disciplinary meeting. Depending on how they view it, if it is a decision meeting, the employer should follow ACAS guidelines and grant rught of accompaniement by a union rep or fellow employee. If he is terminated, he should have a right of appeal per the policy. An apologetic tone is called for. Threats of ET tend to backfire. ETs can be expensive for the claimant and based on the information, I would not consider his chances of winning to be good. While some may feel their free speech is being hampered and that it is terrible that you can't write anything on Facebook about your employer without consequence, that's an unrealistic expectation.
Forgive my bluntness but you son in law is the master of his own misfortune. As long as the company are following their on written procedures and assuming these align with ACAS guidelines, I don't fancy his chances of walking away scott free from this incident.
I was once told by an employment lawyer that you should think carefully about who you name in an employment tribunial. The general gist was to put down as many individuals as possible, as they would all have to turn up to the hearing. This is very costly to the company and has, apparantly, put companies off defending the case and they've just 'paid off' the person making the claim.
The cleaner and Doris the receptionist are both stood there saying 'what the **** am I doing here'? 😆
Threats of ET tend to backfire. ETs can be expensive for the claimant and based on the information, I would not consider his chances of winning to be good.
I'm not saying he should make any threats at this stage - he'd end up looking pretty silly if he got let off with a warning. But if he ends up being dismissed without a redundancy payment, I'd say he would be daft not to take legal advice and at least look at the possibility of an ET or wrongful dismissal claim.
Sorry to be so dismissive to the OP's relative - but do most people really not know this is what happens? Rule one of Facebook & work email - never type anything you would not say about a person to their face. If I owned said company I think I'd take it as a prime excuse to rid the company of those with bottom feeder tendencies...
Not just redundancy to worry about but future references too.
Sanny - MemberETs can be expensive for the claimant
How?
thanks for the advice chaps (and mr sandshoe!)
convert - MemberSorry to be so dismissive to the OP's relative - but do most people really not know this is what happens? Rule one of Facebook & work email - never type anything you would not say about a person to their face. If I owned said company I think I'd take it as a prime excuse to rid the company of those with bottom feeder tendencies...
Not just redundancy to worry about but future references too.
Dont worry about it. He was a bloody idiot to put something like that on FB in the first place.
There is a section written into my contract at the software company i work for stating that "due to the nature of our work we would recommend that you do not post details of your employment to any social networking sites, by doing so you may be in breach of company policies"
It then lists the networking sites - don't suppose you can blame them, slagging off work to your partner is one thing, posting it to FB is just plain stupid. If you don't like where you work i'm sure the doors not locked
TandemJeremy - MemberSanny - Member
ETs can be expensive for the claimant
How?
If they instruct lawyers?
There is a section written into my contract at the software company i work for stating that "due to the nature of our work [u][b]we would recommend[/b][/u] that you do not post details of your employment to any social networking sites, by doing so [u][b]you may be in breach[/b][/u] of company policies"
So that's perfectly clear then. 🙄
