Can facebook posts be used in a work disciplinary?
Discussion
Today I had to attend a disciplinary meeting regarding facebook posts. The posts in question were done via my mobile phone and the content not related to my job. My profile is set as private and only accesible by my 'friends'. A print out of my wall posts has been obtained and as I have none of my work colleagues on my friends list this must have been done by using someone outside of the company.
I assured my employers (who I do not list as employers on my profile) that the comments made were not related to my job or its employees but this seemed to fall on deaf ears.
The conclusion of this meeting was that I would hear a decision regarding possible dismissal within the next couple of days. Is this possible grounds for gross misconduct and subsequent dismissal?
I assured my employers (who I do not list as employers on my profile) that the comments made were not related to my job or its employees but this seemed to fall on deaf ears.
The conclusion of this meeting was that I would hear a decision regarding possible dismissal within the next couple of days. Is this possible grounds for gross misconduct and subsequent dismissal?
There is no company policy stating no use of facebook during working hours.....also my posts have been done in my break times.
As for who have I upset.....well I think this all stems from a personality clash with one of my colleagues (direct superior to myself). I believe that I'm more dispensable than they are and that this is the only way they can find to push me out of the job.
Feeling a bit stressed about the whole situation, so all advice much appreciated!
As for who have I upset.....well I think this all stems from a personality clash with one of my colleagues (direct superior to myself). I believe that I'm more dispensable than they are and that this is the only way they can find to push me out of the job.
Feeling a bit stressed about the whole situation, so all advice much appreciated!
Definitely trial by combat.
Seriously though, you need to make them tell you exactly what the problem is. They have to do that according to the ACAS guidelines otherwise they'll be at risk of a big tribunal claim.
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1043
Read this, learn it off by heart. Also you might ask them how they believe holding facebook posts that were made in your own time and don't mention your work at all falls within the legal framework of the Data Protection Act. Unless they can provide a good reason, they have no reason to have it.
Make sure you have someone in the meeting with you.
And read up on "Compromise Agreements". If the worst comes to the worst (and it sounds like it might) you need to be aware how to f
k them good and proper.
Seriously though, you need to make them tell you exactly what the problem is. They have to do that according to the ACAS guidelines otherwise they'll be at risk of a big tribunal claim.
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1043
Read this, learn it off by heart. Also you might ask them how they believe holding facebook posts that were made in your own time and don't mention your work at all falls within the legal framework of the Data Protection Act. Unless they can provide a good reason, they have no reason to have it.
Make sure you have someone in the meeting with you.
And read up on "Compromise Agreements". If the worst comes to the worst (and it sounds like it might) you need to be aware how to f
k them good and proper.Edited by davepoth on Tuesday 22 March 01:25
davepoth said:
Definitely trial by combat.
Seriously though, you need to make them tell you exactly what the problem is. They have to do that according to the ACAS guidelines otherwise they'll be at risk of a big tribunal claim.
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1043
Read this, learn it off by heart. Also you might ask them how they believe holding facebook posts that were made in your own time and don't mention your work at all falls within the legal framework of the Data Protection Act. Unless they can provide a good reason, they have no reason to have it.
Make sure you have someone in the meeting with you.
And read up on "Compromise Agreements". If the worst comes to the worst (and it sounds like it might) you need to be aware how to fk them good and proper.
The comment I made that seems to have offended was 'when all those around you are miserable bSeriously though, you need to make them tell you exactly what the problem is. They have to do that according to the ACAS guidelines otherwise they'll be at risk of a big tribunal claim.
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1043
Read this, learn it off by heart. Also you might ask them how they believe holding facebook posts that were made in your own time and don't mention your work at all falls within the legal framework of the Data Protection Act. Unless they can provide a good reason, they have no reason to have it.
Make sure you have someone in the meeting with you.
And read up on "Compromise Agreements". If the worst comes to the worst (and it sounds like it might) you need to be aware how to f
k them good and proper.Edited by davepoth on Tuesday 22 March 01:25
ds just keep smiling' This as I pointed out was about an incident that had happened before I started work that day but as a friend then commented underneath 'you at work?' this supposidly implies I was talking about my work colleagues.Thanx for the link..... I shall take a proper look tomorrow when my brain is less frazzled!
1) check that friends of friends cant see your Wall ( IIRC this is on my default)
2) they need to be specific as to the reason why you are being disaplined , whether it being time of posts or content of posts , or both.
3) just don't post/email stuff anywhere that you wouldn't want read out on the prime time news.
I would see no reason why facebook posts cant be used, but the key I would say is in the content - clearly identifying the company and brining it into disrepute.
Here in NZ one person lost their job for calling their managers "gay" on bebo
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id...
upheld in employment court IIRC
2) they need to be specific as to the reason why you are being disaplined , whether it being time of posts or content of posts , or both.
3) just don't post/email stuff anywhere that you wouldn't want read out on the prime time news.
I would see no reason why facebook posts cant be used, but the key I would say is in the content - clearly identifying the company and brining it into disrepute.
Here in NZ one person lost their job for calling their managers "gay" on bebo
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id...
upheld in employment court IIRC
GeraldSmith said:
The answer to the original question 'can facebook posts be used in a work disciplinary?' is Yes. Why would it not be usable?
The underlying question is, could it be used in court? And I doubt if it could. If the information was obtained by dishonest means (and they would have to be open about how they obtained it) then I imagine it would not be allowed. Fairly sure calling people grumpy buggers isn't a sackable offence so they must have more ammunition than just that. In the US you would probably be able to sue the arse off your employers for infringing your right to freedom of expression.Zad said:
The underlying question is, could it be used in court? And I doubt if it could. If the information was obtained by dishonest means (and they would have to be open about how they obtained it) then I imagine it would not be allowed. Fairly sure calling people grumpy buggers isn't a sackable offence so they must have more ammunition than just that. In the US you would probably be able to sue the arse off your employers for infringing your right to freedom of expression.
I was involved in a tribunal last year where a print out of an MSN conversation between two individuals was admitted. We don't know how the details in this case were obtained but it is most likely that a 'friend' printed it and gave it to the employers, which wouldn't be dishonest.As to whether it is gross misconduct, you need to know more to make a judgement, on the surface it doesn't sound enough but without hearing both sides you can't tell.
Zad said:
GeraldSmith said:
The answer to the original question 'can facebook posts be used in a work disciplinary?' is Yes. Why would it not be usable?
The underlying question is, could it be used in court? And I doubt if it could. If the information was obtained by dishonest means (and they would have to be open about how they obtained it) then I imagine it would not be allowed. Fairly sure calling people grumpy buggers isn't a sackable offence so they must have more ammunition than just that. In the US you would probably be able to sue the arse off your employers for infringing your right to freedom of expression.If you disrepute your company in a blog, they could call you in for a disciplinary meeting, that could just mean them saying to you: please do not do this again or we will take further action. Can't fault them for that imho.
The fact that the OP is obscure about the content of the post, I'm assuming he's hiding something?
to the question: yes, they can. Facebook is as good as a blog.
Does the nature of the message matter more than its content?
I would think that what somebody has said or intimated is the important thing, not the medium by which it was conveyed.
Obviously, with the internet or some other forms of electronic media, there is a far greater chance that a message which was intended for limited circulation becomes more generally available compared to what the originator of the message had intended.
If such an event occurs, should the originator of the message be held responsible for how that message ended up being circulated or should the originator of the message (or series of messages) have been aware that there was a good chance that, once posted, the message was beyond his/her control?
There was a case in Ireland last year where internal e-mail messages from an accountancy firm ended up on the internet and some people lost their jobs.
I would think that what somebody has said or intimated is the important thing, not the medium by which it was conveyed.
Obviously, with the internet or some other forms of electronic media, there is a far greater chance that a message which was intended for limited circulation becomes more generally available compared to what the originator of the message had intended.
If such an event occurs, should the originator of the message be held responsible for how that message ended up being circulated or should the originator of the message (or series of messages) have been aware that there was a good chance that, once posted, the message was beyond his/her control?
There was a case in Ireland last year where internal e-mail messages from an accountancy firm ended up on the internet and some people lost their jobs.
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 22 March 08:33
ZesPak said:
The fact that the OP is obscure about the content of the post, I'm assuming he's hiding something?
fleece22 said:
The comment I made that seems to have offended was 'when all those around you are miserable bds just keep smiling' This as I pointed out was about an incident that had happened before I started work that day but as a friend then commented underneath 'you at work?' this supposidly implies I was talking about my work colleagues.
How is that obscure? Seems pretty straightforward to me.ds just keep smiling' This as I pointed out was about an incident that had happened before I started work that day but as a friend then commented underneath 'you at work?' this supposidly implies I was talking about my work colleagues.Good luck OP,it's an oft trotted out piece of advice here but it's true- best to get proper legal advice if you can, either through Citizens Advice or an hour with a solicitor.
fleece22 said:
The comment I made that seems to have offended was 'when all those around you are miserable bds just keep smiling' This as I pointed out was about an incident that had happened before I started work that day but as a friend then commented underneath 'you at work?' this supposidly implies I was talking about my work colleagues.
Thanx for the link..... I shall take a proper look tomorrow when my brain is less frazzled!
If it is this comment they have an issue with and you did make this comment before work, can you not use the time and date stamp to back up your argument?ds just keep smiling' This as I pointed out was about an incident that had happened before I started work that day but as a friend then commented underneath 'you at work?' this supposidly implies I was talking about my work colleagues.Thanx for the link..... I shall take a proper look tomorrow when my brain is less frazzled!
For example if you made that comment at 8am and didn't get into work before 9am that day then it would be a bit of a stretch to think that comment was made about your work colleagues.
Zad said:
The underlying question is, could it be used in court? And I doubt if it could. If the information was obtained by dishonest means (and they would have to be open about how they obtained it) then I imagine it would not be allowed. Fairly sure calling people grumpy buggers isn't a sackable offence so they must have more ammunition than just that. In the US you would probably be able to sue the arse off your employers for infringing your right to freedom of expression.
If needed it could be. It's written material that is pertinent to any case. As has been said, tribunal use is more relvant, however read this and you'll see that Facebook is now being accepted for many things:The Daily Telegraph said:
Solicitor Hilary Thorpe was finding it difficult to get a debtor to attend court to answer questions about their finances.
When all over avenues failed, she recalled a case in Australia in which the Supreme Court gave permission for the social networking website to be used for serving legal documents.
She wondered if a British court would accept the same principle.
Eventually, staff at Hastings County Court in East Sussex accepted her request, and Ms Thorpe has logged onto Facebook to serve the court order.
She said yesterday: "It is great to see that the courts are willing to embrace new technology.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8382570/British-lawyer-uses-Facebook-to-serve-court-summons.htmlWhen all over avenues failed, she recalled a case in Australia in which the Supreme Court gave permission for the social networking website to be used for serving legal documents.
She wondered if a British court would accept the same principle.
Eventually, staff at Hastings County Court in East Sussex accepted her request, and Ms Thorpe has logged onto Facebook to serve the court order.
She said yesterday: "It is great to see that the courts are willing to embrace new technology.
Edited by R1 Loon on Tuesday 22 March 14:44
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff