Viewing (Public) Instagram Profiles = Sacked?
Discussion
One of the four grounds for sacking the CBI chief is said to be that he viewed the Instagram profiles of some staff.
These appear to have been their public Instagram profiles - there's no obvious suggestion of anything covert.
https://nilepost.co.ug/2023/04/19/boss-sacked-for-...
Are there any employment lawyers in the house who could comment on this? It seems a pretty outrageous ground for disciplinary action. Unless I'm very much missing something, public profiles would seem to be just that, public. If people want to restrict who can view them, it would seem that can be done.
Some of the other allegations seem rather weak, too, but this one especially stands out for seeming to be a worrying development in employment law if more widespread.
Am I missing something?
These appear to have been their public Instagram profiles - there's no obvious suggestion of anything covert.
https://nilepost.co.ug/2023/04/19/boss-sacked-for-...
Are there any employment lawyers in the house who could comment on this? It seems a pretty outrageous ground for disciplinary action. Unless I'm very much missing something, public profiles would seem to be just that, public. If people want to restrict who can view them, it would seem that can be done.
Some of the other allegations seem rather weak, too, but this one especially stands out for seeming to be a worrying development in employment law if more widespread.
Am I missing something?
I guess it depends where on on who's time and equipment.
Otherwise, anyone can view anything in their own time.
There's always more to it.
I've gone and read it now, these are the 'more to it' bits:
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
Otherwise, anyone can view anything in their own time.
There's always more to it.
I've gone and read it now, these are the 'more to it' bits:
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
Yes, it's not as straight cut as your thread's title suggests. This guy has been in the scope for the while, and the CBI have been mounting an attack and gathering any possible reason to get rid of him. I fully expect the CBI to invite him to sue them for unfair dismissal and they'll just pay the £price and draw a line, rather than going through the process of fighting this for any longer than is needed.
Edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Wednesday 19th April 10:28
Seems a storm in a teacup to me.
The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh
).
I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh
).I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
DashDriver said:
Seems a storm in a teacup to me.
The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh).
I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
Welcome to white male priviledge! You dont need to be charged with a crime to be sacked, your behaviour at work alone can get you sacked. Here are some of the headlines. The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh
).I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
"The trade body has been rocked by allegations of a toxic workplace culture since Danker was accused last month of making unwanted contact with a woman who works for the CBI. She considered the contact to be sexual harassment"
"Mr Danker's exit followed claims that he sent a female staff member unsolicited messages over a period of more than a year"
"The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents around 190,000 businesses said it has dismissed its director-general Tony Danker with immediate effect after the first phase of an independent investigation into the allegations by law firm Fox Williams"
"According to reports, Danker sent a female employee a barrage of messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year."
In a strongly worded statement the CBI said it had become clear that “his own conduct fell short of that expected of the Director General.”
"However it added that the dismissal was not related to more recent claims about sexual misconduct and drug taking by senior CBI figures that were published by the Guardian last week. Three other CBI employees are now suspended “pending further investigations,”
So he has been investigated and the police are going to investigate. But yeah, it's definitely because he is a white male that he has been targetted.
dundarach said:
I guess it depends where on on who's time and equipment.
Otherwise, anyone can view anything in their own time.
There's always more to it.
I've gone and read it now, these are the 'more to it' bits:
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
I realise there's more to it, hence I said one of the four grounds. But if it is a named ground, it presumably has to stand up as something substantive, surely?Otherwise, anyone can view anything in their own time.
There's always more to it.
I've gone and read it now, these are the 'more to it' bits:
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
As regards the other grounds, as-written they do seem to be surprisingly "thin".
DashDriver said:
Seems a storm in a teacup to me.
The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh).
I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
He hasn't been accused of a serious sexual assault, has he? I thought that's the whole point - that the allegation relates to another person.The issue seems to be that because he has been accused of serious sexual assault, that any conduct in the past that may or may not have been innocent has been viewed in a suspicious light. Asking people out for lunch(sounds like a monster yeh
).I have checked staff Instagram, if it a non private social media profile (clues in the name social) then its public domain. Not on work time however.
Its a hard life being a male and a white one as soon as someone makes an allegation of serious nature a lot of people now assume your guilty without charge or trial.
He has not been charged with a crime, believe it or not some women lie about these things on occasion.
skwdenyer said:
He hasn't been accused of a serious sexual assault, has he? I thought that's the whole point - that the allegation relates to another person.
I believe City of London are investigating an allegation, the media post are all over the post and I have read 3 and they put a different spin on it>He said his reputation had been ‘totally trashed’ because these claims – which included drug use as well as serious sexual assault -emerged a matter of weeks after the CBI disclosed that it was looking into separate allegations of misconduct against him.
Direct quote from the man himself. Cited four reasons for dismissal:
Organising a secret and private karaoke party for 15 people after a Christmas work event
Viewing the Instagram accounts of CBI staff
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
I am sure there are other things that will have come out. None of those things alone will have been the cause, but there will have been a pattern. It would be interesting to see what the 15 people at the karaoke looked like (my guess, young / female). And I suspect the mentoring will mostly have been young/female as well.
In my line of work there are indeed mentoring sessions but they are remote / never in a 121 working breakfast/lunch/dinner type scenario (they would always be in a group event).
He also complains that he is being made the scapegoat, like he isn't in charge of the CBI! So he is just another person who likes to take the money/title but doesn't like the responsiblity that goes with it.
Organising a secret and private karaoke party for 15 people after a Christmas work event
Viewing the Instagram accounts of CBI staff
Sending non-work related messages to staff on work messaging platforms
Inviting junior staff to breakfasts, lunches or one-on-one meetings
I am sure there are other things that will have come out. None of those things alone will have been the cause, but there will have been a pattern. It would be interesting to see what the 15 people at the karaoke looked like (my guess, young / female). And I suspect the mentoring will mostly have been young/female as well.
In my line of work there are indeed mentoring sessions but they are remote / never in a 121 working breakfast/lunch/dinner type scenario (they would always be in a group event).
He also complains that he is being made the scapegoat, like he isn't in charge of the CBI! So he is just another person who likes to take the money/title but doesn't like the responsiblity that goes with it.
DashDriver said:
skwdenyer said:
He hasn't been accused of a serious sexual assault, has he? I thought that's the whole point - that the allegation relates to another person.
I believe City of London are investigating an allegation, the media post are all over the post and I have read 3 and they put a different spin on it>He said his reputation had been ‘totally trashed’ because these claims – which included drug use as well as serious sexual assault -emerged a matter of weeks after the CBI disclosed that it was looking into separate allegations of misconduct against him.
Guardian said:
The allegations, though unproven at this point, are harrowing. Today, the beleaguered organisation also announced that its director general, Tony Danker, will leave with immediate effect, to be replaced by its former chief economist Rain Newton-Smith. Danker was the subject of separate complaints earlier this month, one of which was defined as sexual harassment, and he was not the subject of the sexual misconduct claims most recently reported by the Guardian, but the board says his conduct “fell short of that expected of the director general”.
That seems to be clear to me that there's no allegation of sexual assault against him. The "separate allegations" are what he's been sacked for; separate from the sexual misconduct / assault claims that relate to (an)other people/person.On the wider point, if the boss can't have one-on-one meetings with any and all staff, that seems, err, a retrograde step, does it not?
skwdenyer said:
That seems to be clear to me that there's no allegation of sexual assault against him. The "separate allegations" are what he's been sacked for; separate from the sexual misconduct / assault claims that relate to (an)other people/person.
On the wider point, if the boss can't have one-on-one meetings with any and all staff, that seems, err, a retrograde step, does it not?
As a hetro white male you seem to be correct, if he said he identified as trans I think he would have been fine.On the wider point, if the boss can't have one-on-one meetings with any and all staff, that seems, err, a retrograde step, does it not?
Its not clear if it was all female this 1 to 1 offering and msgs or whether it was just junior staff. I worked with a very unpredictable person who was a very short guy who was married to a female member of staff 15 years his junior who he had met and had an affair with and subsequently married.
He was very aggressive at times and a bully. He never picked just on women he would treat new male staff the same, when I was sent to work with him he tried to bully me and as my boss was senior to him and I just told him speak to Steve if you don't like it, after about 3 months he realised I was not going to bend to his tactics and he started working with me instead.
It was a Join Venture arrangement I worked for the same company as this guy but the other partner sent a new person and she left after 2 months claiming he was a bully and created hostile environment. Was a massive thing as he was suspended sent to work out of my other office were he was quiet as a mouse!
I was interrogated by both companies HR as to this guys conduct it was very uncomfortable but they only asked if I had seen him bully or swear at women and most of his abuse was to males and he had kicked off at me a few times!
I toed the company line and I didn't mentioned he had tried to bully me. In the end he was removed from his current role and moved to my main office, then they got rid of another member of staff who was very meak and quite but knew his stuff. He was on a final warning over his conduct.
After I left moved to a new role I visited the office site to speak to a member of staff, I was standing on a pedestrian walkway and this bully pulled up and with a senior member of staff in the car he "you don't f*** work here anymore and why aren't you wearing PPE" some people just can't be helped!
I expect a lot of this is patterns of behaviour.
I.e. none of the things would get them sacked on there own, but do support related allegations
e.g. sending questionable messages on work time based on stuff from instagram could easily be argued as stalking other staff, but looking at public instagram posts probably shouldn't on its own.
I also expect that the public bit of what is alleged is carefully worded because they daren't make some allegations, especially if there are police investigations etc going on...
I.e. none of the things would get them sacked on there own, but do support related allegations
e.g. sending questionable messages on work time based on stuff from instagram could easily be argued as stalking other staff, but looking at public instagram posts probably shouldn't on its own.
I also expect that the public bit of what is alleged is carefully worded because they daren't make some allegations, especially if there are police investigations etc going on...
DashDriver said:
I was interrogated by both companies HR as to this guys conduct it was very uncomfortable but they only asked if I had seen him bully or swear at women and most of his abuse was to males and he had kicked off at me a few times!
I toed the company line and I didn't mentioned he had tried to bully me. In the end he was removed from his current role and moved to my main office, then they got rid of another member of staff who was very meak and quite but knew his stuff. He was on a final warning over his conduct.
After I left moved to a new role I visited the office site to speak to a member of staff, I was standing on a pedestrian walkway and this bully pulled up and with a senior member of staff in the car he "you don't f*** work here anymore and why aren't you wearing PPE" some people just can't be helped!
Why would you lie and risk your own job to protect a scumbag?I toed the company line and I didn't mentioned he had tried to bully me. In the end he was removed from his current role and moved to my main office, then they got rid of another member of staff who was very meak and quite but knew his stuff. He was on a final warning over his conduct.
After I left moved to a new role I visited the office site to speak to a member of staff, I was standing on a pedestrian walkway and this bully pulled up and with a senior member of staff in the car he "you don't f*** work here anymore and why aren't you wearing PPE" some people just can't be helped!
hidetheelephants said:
Why would you lie and risk your own job to protect a scumbag?
I didn't lie if you read my post they focused on his behaviour with females, I had not witnessed any of the incidents directly with females but was told by one member of female staff about an historic thing. Other than shout and swear at a guy and myself I never saw he pick on a female. He wasn't sexual harassing he was just aggressive and a bully. The issue was I spoke to the Area Director and they said we needed to protect out firm in the partnership, it was HR from my firm and the partner firm, so was very awkward. I was in the frame for a promotion and I had to work with this guy and his wife! He was protected for some reason, I don't get it he is very knowledgeable qualified and was named on some contractors with government agencies. I got the feeling me throwing him under the bus was not in my interest, also he was ok with me by this point and his wife was my assistant! If I known that they would have sacked my friend to get this another role and then he would go on to kick off at me again maybe I would have played it different!
hidetheelephants said:
He tried to bully you and you repeatedly saw him bully others; it's all misconduct.
Yes but he was protected by the senior leadership team, they knew he was prone to shouting and getting his tempter up and there had been rumblings about him not working with his wife as some saw it as a conflict (you think). He had loads of experience and was known in the area.They had recently sent my boss packing, it was unsteady times I didn't want to risk my job and my promotion. It was intermated to me that I was to be careful what I said about him, that's how some places work. Just because its wrong doesn't mean some people aren't protected and get away with it. It was true I had only been going to his office a couple of months and didn't witness any of the reported incidents. I was going through a divorce had legal bills didn't want to lose my job as well. As it happens 9/10 of the questions I had not been about when it had happened. When they said does he get aggressive or shout staff I said I have seen he raise he voice on at least one occasion, no lies.
He was not allowed back to that role and moved to another office, so clearly the complaint had some legs and the SLT didn't want to sack him as they had cause! Sadly that displaced a really nice I worked with who was 2 years off retirement and 11 years in the job!
DashDriver said:
hidetheelephants said:
He tried to bully you and you repeatedly saw him bully others; it's all misconduct.
Yes but he was protected by the senior leadership team, they knew he was prone to shouting and getting his tempter up and there had been rumblings about him not working with his wife as some saw it as a conflict (you think). He had loads of experience and was known in the area.They had recently sent my boss packing, it was unsteady times I didn't want to risk my job and my promotion. It was intermated to me that I was to be careful what I said about him, that's how some places work. Just because its wrong doesn't mean some people aren't protected and get away with it. It was true I had only been going to his office a couple of months and didn't witness any of the reported incidents. I was going through a divorce had legal bills didn't want to lose my job as well. As it happens 9/10 of the questions I had not been about when it had happened. When they said does he get aggressive or shout staff I said I have seen he raise he voice on at least one occasion, no lies.
He was not allowed back to that role and moved to another office, so clearly the complaint had some legs and the SLT didn't want to sack him as they had cause! Sadly that displaced a really nice I worked with who was 2 years off retirement and 11 years in the job!
Unfortunately if an overly aggressive/bullying/sexist manager is getting results (or are close with the leadership team) then you will find the company will side them always, or find a way to pin the blame on someone else.
HR are NOT there to protect you, they are there to protect the senior managers.
How does anyone know he looked at the IG profiles? There must be a bit more to it that than just looking at the profiles.
I guess they know because it was done on a work computer and I would guess the reason this is a problem is because the only reason he looked at those profiles is because of the work relationship. It's not appropriate behaviour, in the context of the other allegations.
Not relevant in this case, but it's possible that looking at public information comes under the scope of RIPA and there are solid reasons why many agencies would dismiss for this if it was a work machine, regardless of who was being looked at. With knowledge of IP addresses it's possible for IG to identify and tip-off individuals that are being surveiled.
I guess they know because it was done on a work computer and I would guess the reason this is a problem is because the only reason he looked at those profiles is because of the work relationship. It's not appropriate behaviour, in the context of the other allegations.
Not relevant in this case, but it's possible that looking at public information comes under the scope of RIPA and there are solid reasons why many agencies would dismiss for this if it was a work machine, regardless of who was being looked at. With knowledge of IP addresses it's possible for IG to identify and tip-off individuals that are being surveiled.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff