Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:06 AM

Firstly; The company and people involved will not be named and no indication as to which company it is will be given.

I am facing dismissal from a throwaway comment put up on Facebook.
My managers found out by someone telling them who I had added as a friend.
My settings are set to the highest levels of Privacy and nobody can access my profile unless I have accept them as a friend.
The comment in question is about managers using no swear words.
I was never given the handbook or policy so know nothing about these kind of comments being forbidden. I had NO idea that it was considered "Gross Misconduct" and I never mentioned the company in this status, neither have I ever had the company listed as my employer.

I am not a member of a union and will see CAB on monday but does anyone have any advice on this?
I find it hideously unfair considering I didn't know how serious this matter was and considering I have never stated who my employers are.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2011, 11:11 AM

Funny, it would seem that in the case you are the idiot! If you wouldn't stand up and say something publicly, don't put it on the internet. Not mentioning your employer could serve as a small defence but if I were you I would be searching the NWN job section not bothering with the CAB.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:15 AM

There is no need to call me names. I came on here for advice, not to be insulted.
I'm already upset enough over this, do you think that comment has made me feel in the slightest bit better?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 23 2011, 11:27 AM

Simple truth is social networks are as useful as a chocolate fireguard if you want a private conversation, and the sooner people realise that the fewer of these events there will be. Don't say anything on a network you wouldn't shout in a crowded pub.
Once you press 'send', the comment is as published as if you placed an ad in the NWN - or left a message on someones voicemail.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:31 AM

Ok,
the fact is that I did not know that this was considered Gross Misconduct because the company had never told or shown me.
If I had thought for a second about it then I probably would have thought not to put it on but we all know how easy it is to type something on the internet. We don't sit and plan out and develope every tiny comment we make on here.
If I had known I would never have done it.

Posted by: user23 Jul 23 2011, 11:35 AM

How did your company find out about it?

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:37 AM

A colleague I had added as a friend went and showed them. They have admitted they cannot access my profile because it is private which means they have not been able to print anything.
They have also admitted that I have never recieved the relevant documentation telling me this is forbidden and how serious it is.

Posted by: user23 Jul 23 2011, 11:47 AM

Except they can access your profile through your "friend" at work.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:57 AM

Proving it is not accesible to the public

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 11:59 AM

I feel we are getting away from the point.
I did not know this was such a serious offence, I did not even know it was an offence.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 23 2011, 12:05 PM

Presumably Decarix you may have signed a contract, which gives you a form of protection.
Not sure how Gross Misconduct is thought of these days.I would have thought you should be given the
written warnings etc, then you would have a chance to find a new employer (perhaps with luck a simple reference even).

I agree with earlier comments, you have to keep thoughts to yourself these days...How many "Toxic e-mails" are made public?
I am sure you would have read some of the stuff posted by MPs on twitter are a source of humiliation.
Sally Bercow is a bit of a loose cannon for example.

Hope the news from your company is not too bad.ce

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 23 2011, 12:06 PM

Seems the company are being a bit too touchy to me? Are you sure that is all you stated? If everyone got dismissed for saying that Managers are useless then job centers would be inundated!

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 12:12 PM

This is why I feel it is so unfair. I said the managers comment then when someone asked why I said
"Because I am a *specific job role* and I keep being put on different departments so I cannot complete work vital to the smooth running of my department, then I get spoken to about why I am not doing the jobs for my department"

I never said which company it was for or which manager(s) I was referring to.

I'm here for advice, I wouldn't withhold anything. I can honestly say I didn't even use any swear words!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 23 2011, 12:18 PM

How long have you been employed by the employer?
Were you given written statement of the complaint against you before your disciplinary hearing?
Were you given the opportunity to be represented?
Were you given an opportunity to appeal the decision?
Is the employer a public body or a private company?
Were you already under a written warning for misconduct?

I would say that a private statement refering to your managers as idiots could ammount to gross misconduct if for example you made the statement to a client, but to friends and colleagues I'd say it was at worst misconduct. I think your employer has over-reacted, but the question now is what to do about it. If you have been dismissed then you may possibly be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal, but they're unlikely to give you your job back so the best you'll get is a bit of compensation.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 12:34 PM

I have not been with them long enuogh for any legal standing or tribunals. 8 months.
I was not given anything before they investigated me, I have my disciplinary hearing early next week.
Yes to representation but I was not a member of a union before the start of this investigation so there wasn't much I could do about that.
A decision has not been made yet.
The employer is a shop commonly found on highstreets.
I have an exmplary record with this company and have even been praised by managers for my customer service and hard work and have been recognised in the company to become a manager "in 12-18 months"
My customer service has regularly contributed to our customer service weekly score to 70% and above. I have been rewarded twice for my skills and services to the company.

In the investigation I said that I would like all of this to be taken into consideration and they told me they can only use what is in fron tof them for this investigation. Nothing outisde of it.


They are saying that my friends are potential customers.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 23 2011, 12:48 PM

Practice grovelling over the next few days. Sounds like you have a good record,
and some managers have recognised that...Shame you can't use those details in your hearing
The panel will have your history though. Maybe in the right hands it will help.
Good luck.ce

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 12:49 PM

Thank you all for your advice.

I don't think I have much chance, this is a very large company and it definately feels like they are bulldozing me.

All they needed to do was make sure I knew the rules and it would have come down immediately.

Sucks.

Posted by: thatcham resident Jul 23 2011, 12:57 PM

I would say that you colleague is after your job ! why dont you just take the comment off of FB ? unless your colleague has already printed it out.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 01:14 PM

The comment was taken off before the investigation began because another colleague who actually IS a friend warned me. They have no proof but all they need is other peoples word against mine.
They have two different peoples statementss saying they saw this comment on my facebook.
They havent printed it off because they can't access it! Because it is not publically open!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 23 2011, 01:25 PM

This sounds like a very popular supermarket that I am familiar with. They are allegedly a vengeful employer and apparently have a poor attitude to employees. Their union is hopeless as well.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 23 2011, 01:36 PM

I cannot say who it is for fear of getting in more trouble.
A union may have been mentioned when I joined back in december but **** if I know! I never got any paperwork or anything to tell me so! Just like I never got anything saying I couldn't do this.
No union will take my case because I need to be a member before the investigation started, not half way through.

Posted by: thatcham resident Jul 23 2011, 04:48 PM

But your colleague that you had added as a friend could have printed it off, as all friends that you have added see and have access to your profile.

Posted by: Brewmaster Jul 23 2011, 05:10 PM

Try taking the company to an industrial tribunal on the grounds of wrongful dismissal.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 23 2011, 05:59 PM

If you work for who I think you do, the union would be rubbish anyway. I think you will just have to take this on the chin. Perhaps kick the 'friend' in the groin as well.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jul 23 2011, 06:30 PM

Seriously, if you post on the internet it's a matter of record, If you want to "socialise" get a mate, go down the pub, ring someone up. WTF is this obsession with face book and twitter ??

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 23 2011, 07:01 PM

It's called evolution. Perhaps you still swing from the trees and beat drums to communicate?

Posted by: Jayjay Jul 23 2011, 08:57 PM

Hopefully you posted from your home computer and in your own time. Suggest you contact ACAS who will give good advice. Email HR explaining you did not receive the booklet at induction and request a copy. This will establish it was not provided previously and will also assist CAB in assessing your case. At any hearing you are allowed to take a work colleague or legal rep. If you contact the union rep working on site they may agree to sit in with you. Otherwise take someone you feel comfortable with, it will give you confidence. Good luck.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 23 2011, 09:29 PM

Wrongful dismissal will go nowhere at all.

You do not qualify for such legal protection until you have completed 12 months with your employer. Until that time, you can be dismissed without reason (but not without notice) - as long as they do not discriminate on grounds of race, gender or disability.

In the case here, the difference between gross misconduct and misconduct is whether or not notice will be paid.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 23 2011, 09:32 PM

Not so.

You may take a work colleague or qualified union rep; there is no entitlement to take any legal representation. This was confirmed by recent case law.

Posted by: Sidney Jul 23 2011, 11:39 PM

There is no need to call you names ?? ..... well that's what you did on Facebook to someone else is it not ?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 24 2011, 08:28 AM

Facebook?..........nothing but trouble.
I hear almost every day of the problems crate by it.
Some have even ended their lives because of comments on it.

Posted by: user23 Jul 24 2011, 08:33 AM

It's a great medium for keeping in touch people and the benefits far outweigh the "problems" with it. I type problems in inverted commas as aren't the problems with the people that use it rather than the medium itself.

If it wasn't, Google wouldn't be about to release their own version.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 24 2011, 08:49 AM

Good point and therein lies the problem - as highlighted in this case??
Only trouble is that those affected are often not the "misusers".

Posted by: user23 Jul 24 2011, 08:57 AM

It's the same as many other media. For example people use the telephone to harass others and paedophiles use the postal system to send perverse pictures to each other.

Both actions affect other people negatively and are criminal acts yet I've never heard anyone suggest that either medium "is nothing but trouble".

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 24 2011, 09:00 AM

Just a figure of speech, but it seems that every day I hear of problems caused by comments on Facebook, either with people I know or in the news.
This is not so of other mediums.

Posted by: GMR Jul 24 2011, 09:52 AM

i thought that was changed to 24 months many years ago?

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 10:34 AM

I didn't call anyone specifically names. In fact the person who took offence to it was not the person the comment was about.

Proving that it has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't directly relate to any specific person.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 10:43 AM

I know they did not print it off. The company are having trouble getting hard evidence because they cannot access my profile. Suggesting...it at least has some level of privacy and is DEFINATELY not publically open.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 24 2011, 11:14 AM

It's a bit harsh I know, but I think your best strategy is to be sacked with your dignity and integrity in tact. Take responsibility and apologise, and don't make excuses, and you might even escape with a final written warning.

Posted by: user23 Jul 24 2011, 11:23 AM

Whilst you're right that your settings did not allow it to be seen directly by the public, anything you post on Facebook has the potential to be seen by anyone else given the viral nature of how information can spread on the Internet.

I might have thought http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/14/facebook-juror-defendant-contempt should highlight that one should use Social Media with a great deal of thought as to what and to whom they post.

I agree with Simon here and perhaps it's best to chalk this up to experience and walk away.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 11:25 AM

Best to be dismissed than resign?
Dismissed means I will get help should I not be able to find a job but resigned will mean I don't have such a problem getting a job.
"why did you leave your job?" "fired for gross misconduct" doesn't sit well with a lot of employers

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 24 2011, 11:31 AM

Before doing anything, seek legal advice, CAB or whatever and being humble is your only defence at this stage. You are right though, some shop mangers are idiots, but you were stupid to iron your dirty washing in 'public'. Your 'friend' deserves a slap as well, the scab. If you get sacked, make sure you go public and name the grass as well.

Although you have already learned the hard way, never type anything in an email, forum, Internet site that you are not prepared for anyone to read.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 11:39 AM

I'm off to CAB first thing tomorrow.

To be honest, the comment was made because I had spoken to the managers involved and aired my frustrations to them and they just carried on doing exactly what I had the angst with and didn't offer any solutions and it felt like they had ignored me and didn't care about what I was saying. This amounted to frustration which I had to put on facebook so people would agree with me.
If the managers had taken my concerns into proper consideration and dealt with them correctly none of this would have happened.

Please do not call me names. I am very emotional with all of this happening at the moment and this promotes anger and upset within me. I realise what I did was wrong, there is no need to be calling me things.

I feel it is only fair to my other colleagues to know what type of people they are working with and that they need to watch what they say around this grass because they will run back to managers seemingly just to get people in trouble.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Jul 24 2011, 11:59 AM

If you think it is only fair to tell your colleagues what you think of them, because the management are your colleagues also, stand by what you said and stop whining.

Posted by: user23 Jul 24 2011, 12:03 PM

Sorry to pick one sentence out and comment on it but reading this it seems you were trying to create some sort of mutiny against your management by using Facebook.

When you were thinking that "people would agree with me" perhaps you would have done better to think what reaction it might have on those that didn't agree with you and perhaps they might interpret your actions as I did in my first sentence.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 12:10 PM

As I said, I did talk to my managers about my frustrations and concerns and nothing came of it.

When I say agree with me I don't mean to create mutiny but I mean ..I can't figure out how to say it...

If you had a bad experience in work you'd keep it to yourself? You wouldn't then go and seek solace in a friend or family member?

Solace is the word I should have used, not agree.

Posted by: Jacklets Jul 24 2011, 01:30 PM

Yes of course - most people would seek support or advice - however the best way to do it is quietly and with discretion - one to one. But don't shout it out in front of a "room" full of other people - which is in essence what you did on facebook. As others have said - it's not private, you're very naive if you think it is - I'm not sure how many "friends" you have on there, and how well you know them all, but they will all have seen it, and are likely to all know where you work, so will know who you are referring to. They in turn can easily share it with their "friends".

I agree with some other comments here - the best way forward would be to apologise, say you've learnt your lesson and hope they might give you a second chance - if you have the examplary record you say you have then they might just do that. But continuing to air your greivances on here - a public forum, is probably not the best way to show your remorse.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 24 2011, 01:39 PM

OP, I think you probably know full well this wasn't your one and only "dig" at you managers. I suspect your a serial winger and trouble maker and this was the last straw.

As other have said, learn from it and be grateful if your lucky enough to get another job.

You are aware that you have no "right" to a job - aren't you?

Posted by: user23 Jul 24 2011, 02:00 PM

Well then in my view you had two choices (unless they were breaking employment law), accept it or move on.

Even the best, most accommodating manager can't agree with all his staff all the time and sometimes one needs to accept that they're carrying out a course of action that they don't agree with. This could be anything from investing millions in the "wrong" hedge fund to stacking beans in the "wrong" place.

Making your feelings known publicly as you have done could be interpreted as unprofessional.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 24 2011, 02:13 PM

Despite the uncaring attitude from others, I understand your problem. You could lose your job for a 'simple' mistake. Personally, I wish you could screw them, because those shops treat their employees like sh1te.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 24 2011, 03:21 PM

Just an aside - I suspect there are a good few staff who used to work for banks or certain newspapers who wished colleagues had been so unprofessional. For instance, Sir Fred Goodwin might still be just junior teller ....

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 24 2011, 03:49 PM

Again as a slight diversion. I edited old cine films and posted them on youtube. About 250,000 views.
Mostly positive..comments.. You can do demographic and many of the viewers were from Norway.
Shocking story

Youtube has changed again. Ms Decarix. And virtually anything I have viewed has been linked to other films that I have looked at. Mostly old rock..(Gladly no Porn)..... "You might like to Watch this" is the headline.
You have to be careful today
Christopher.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 05:08 PM

Actually it was my one and only. Actually I do have an exemplary record full of two seperate recommendations to become a manager myself within a year (that's gone out the window even if I do only receive a final warning) I have never had any trouble and never create it. I offer overtime and help with other things where possible. I have been trusted in training new staff and when they start they ask me to show them around because of their confidence in me.

I have the right to work thank you and considering I do not scrounge off the governemnt and I am not happy to sit at home and spend other peoples money on cheap booze and in fact will not for as long as I can help it.

I think your quick judgement on this situation and only reason for posting on here to create a negative reaction tells us all we need to know about the type of person you are and your attitude towards work.

I am a bl00dy hard worker and this is why I am so upset over the reproccusions for making such a small mistake.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 24 2011, 09:49 PM

If you are working for a big organisation - it just might be worth appealing to the HO staff people. Contrary to popular belief good shop staff are hard to get and keep - so may well be worth a try. Again, a little humility likely to pay dividends. Good luck!

Posted by: Decarix Jul 24 2011, 11:17 PM

Thank you all so much for your help on this matter.
I'm off to seek advice from all sorts of places tomorrow, I will let you know the outcome.

D x

Posted by: Simon Jul 25 2011, 11:45 AM

I think the big issue with social networking sites is that people dont understand how easy it is for personal information to be viewed by others.

Using the same unique username on multiple sites makes it very easy to simply google that name and see what that person belongs to.

This just proves what other people have already said on this post, never say anything on the internet that you wouldnt be happy sharing with strangers or post any pics/vids that you may one day regret posting,

Once something is on the net, it is there for anyone to see forever

Posted by: Bloggo Jul 25 2011, 12:34 PM

Actually there are formal dismissal processes that have to be upheld by law and the incident described on it's own does not sound like an instant dismissal item. I suspect that there may be more to this if the employer is taking such drastic action.

A bit of a sweeping statement don't you think?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 01:12 PM

If it is the shop I think it is, then it is not surprising at all.


Maybe...just speaking from experience!

Posted by: Decarix Jul 25 2011, 01:19 PM

Apparently it is considered gross misconduct and thus is eligable for a summary dismissal

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 01:29 PM

And being less than a year into the job makes it even worse, I would imagine. Many companies have conduct rule, that is to say, that one is obliged to speak about the company only in good light. For you to be dismissed in the manner you claim would sound harsh, but possible.

Posted by: Bloggo Jul 25 2011, 01:31 PM

I'm sure that any legal entity would not classify your actions as "gross mis-conduct"
Gross misconduct embraces sexual harrisment, bullying, stealing, gross verbal abuse etc.
Your act is one of minor mis-conduct and would warrant a formal warning.
If the ONLY misdemeanor you have done is as you say and you don't have any "history" then I would consult a solicitor as you may be unfairly dismissed.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 25 2011, 01:33 PM

Yes, I am just going to basically ask them to look at me as an employee and play on the fact that I am a brilliant worker and they need me in their company and nothing like this will ever happen again *fingers crossed*

Posted by: Bloggo Jul 25 2011, 01:38 PM

Ah, but going by personal experience can be a good measure from an instinctive point of view but it is flawed

Posted by: Decarix Jul 25 2011, 01:38 PM

Unfair dismissal only comes into affect after 12 months of service. Apparently they do consider this gross misconduct

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 25 2011, 06:16 PM

As pointed out previously, these processes only kick in after 12 months; prior to that you can simply be fired.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 25 2011, 06:20 PM

Gross misconduct is anything written into the employee's contract - usually examples. What any other legal entity would think is irrelevant.

The OP cannot be unfairly dismissed (unless through unlawful discrimination) prior to completing 12 months service.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 07:10 PM

I'm sorry Berkshirelad, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that it is wrongful dismissal if the OP is dismissed unfairly?

Posted by: Strafin Jul 25 2011, 07:19 PM

No there is a separate law for discrimination. If you are fired for being black in the first 12 months you can sue. if you are fired for just not being up to the job you can not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 07:55 PM

Surely this is the case whether 12 seconds or 120 years. You cannot be fired for being black, period, I thought.


I think you can be fired at any time for not being up to the job, but there is a due process to follow, which includes a compromise agreement.

The issue here, is that it is alleged that someone is being charged with gross misconduct without they having been advised of what constitutes gross misconduct, not for being up to the job. The issue is complicated by the fact the person has not completed 12 months service.

One cannot claim unfair dismissal with less than 12 months service unless:

• Dismissal for trade union membership.
• Dismissal on maternity related grounds.
• Dismissal related to paternity leave.
• Dismissal related to adoption leave.
• Dismissal on grounds related to the right to request flexible working arrangements.
• Dismissal of a shop worker or betting worker for refusing, or proposing to refuse, to do shop work or betting work on Sundays.
• Dismissal for qualifying for the national minimum wage or seeking to enforce a right to it.
• Dismissal for exercising rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
• Dismissal for making a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
• Dismissal for performing, or proposing to perform, any duties relating to an employee's role as an employee representative or as a candidate to be a representative of this kind or for participating in the election of such a representative.
• Dismissal for taking lawfully organised official industrial action lasting twelve weeks or less (or more than twelve weeks, in certain circumstances).
• Dismissal on grounds relating to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 for undertakings with 50 or more employees.
• Dismissal on grounds relating to jury service.
• Dismissal in connection with a meeting to discuss a request not to retire.

http://www.winstonsolicitors.co.uk/12-month-rule-unfair-dismissal.htm

Posted by: Strafin Jul 25 2011, 08:05 PM

OK, you can't sue for unfair dismissal in the first 12 months of employment - unless you are dismissed for something which would fall under the normal laws for discrimination. The law for unfair dismissal only comes into effect after a one year employment period. Rules for discrimination are instant.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 25 2011, 08:34 PM

This is it in a nutshell. Unfair Dismissal is a statutory protection from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents, and it provides protection from certain specific discrimination, some of which requires a 12 months qualifying period, some of which doesn't. Wrongful Dismissal on the other hand is a common-law remedy and is nothing more than a synonym for breach of employment contract, and while an employment tribunal has juristiction to hear claims for wrongful dismissal you can also sue in court.

Posted by: Sidney Jul 25 2011, 09:46 PM

Can't actually believe this thread warrants any "advice". You messed up, you pay the price .... personally I would be too embarassed to admit to it on yet another public forum.... one which your bosses can also see ?!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 10:08 PM

Perhaps some of us like to see fair play? And what happened to Fair Comment?

Posted by: Sidney Jul 25 2011, 10:26 PM

Yes but surely commenting further on a public forum could potentially exasperate the problem !!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 25 2011, 10:31 PM

I agree, it could, but I would imagine one was desperate.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 26 2011, 08:13 AM

Now let's turn this around to all those wrongly supporting claims for unfair dismissal.

Your now the employer running a business and paying this dweeb £13,000+ year. Dweeb now goes online and slates you and your business. Are you still going pay said fool, are you still going to want their poison spreading through your company.

Perhaps the OP should have a look at what's happening jobwise, particularly in retail, and maybe grow up and just do the job they are being paid to do. If the OP isn't happy with their managers leave and get another job, McDonald & Weatherspoons are constantly employing.

OP - simple question, if this business is run so badly, and you could obviously do so much better, why don't you start your own business?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 26 2011, 09:55 AM

Firstly, it wasn't public, it was a private conversation and the company remains unknown, but someone blabbed. Second, if I was a company who had staff with issues, I'd like to think I would be able to iron the issue out so that same person would go back on line and say what a good company they work for. I'd also like to know from my managers why shop-floor staff were not properly inducted into the company, so that the staff were fully aware of their responsibilities. I'd also like to know from my mangers why staff with previously good record were demoralised. I would suspect this person to be the tip of an iceberg.

Knowledge is power.

PS - I obviously have taken in good faith what I have previously read, but like you and other people have posted, there is nearly always two sides to a story.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 26 2011, 10:24 AM

Your right, and I was putting the other side of the story.

The only thing we do know is that the OP is a relatively new member of staff (8 months was it), so that's not time to have proven a good record. What they have proven is they are not happy in their job and causing trouble, and any new member of staff that comes into a business and starts trouble making, which is what has happened here, for whatever reason, should be asked to leave. I also don't think posting on facebook would really be considered as private.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 26 2011, 10:49 AM

Are you a member of the company's management team? Otherwise, like the rest of us, you are assuming things.


She alleged that she was promoted quickly. One can tell very quickly if someone has 'got it'.


They are not happy with how they are managed, that's not necessarily the same as being unhappy in their job. Experience has shown me that it only takes a poor manager to wreck jobs or careers.


That is a very short sighted view in my opinion. I suggest that one gets to the bottom of the grievance first, before you start dismissing potentially good staff. It is also important to realise that this person alleges that she was not properly inducted, and that suggests a failing of the management. The OP claims not to have realised that what she was doing was gross misconduct.


It wasn't posted to the general public; it was on a private part the forum. The person didn't name the company nor the managers concerned either, so it wouldn't show up on searches. I do, however, agree with your sentiment that one shouldn't write ill on the Internet unless they are happy for anyone to read it.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 26 2011, 10:55 AM

Oh I'm totally making assumptions as we have no actual facts to go on. Just trying to put the view of the employer across for a bit of balance.

Mind you if this employee really was as good as she claims she wouldn't be dismissed over one incident, which is what raises suspicions on her side of the story.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 26 2011, 11:32 AM

Yes, the actual 'offence' might just be a an excuse to get rid of someone who is vexatious and make an example of them; who knows. In my view the offence is minor if it has been detailed accurately. At most, the employee has been naive, rather than malicious or trying to cause trouble. On the other hand, it could also be a vindictive employer, and no-one wins if that is the case.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 26 2011, 03:39 PM

Surely if the employee was that good then they would have some initiative? Saying that you don't know the companies policy on slagging off managers online shouldn't be an excuse. Common sense should prevail. I think sacking is a little harsh but the OP to me sounds like a young "knows better than everyone else" type, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jul 26 2011, 04:22 PM

perhaps, just perhaps, we are only hearing one side of it. Where they a good employee ? was the post made in works time? was this a first occasion? I would think that if the employee was in any way valued they would have earned a reprimand. I stillsay (at the risk of being comdemned as a prehistoric Luddite) that both Facebook and Twitter are the Devils tools.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 26 2011, 04:43 PM

I have to agree.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 26 2011, 05:02 PM

They have their place.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 27 2011, 01:53 PM

Well it turned out for the worse because it is considered "Gross Misconduct" ...apparently.

They will not pay me any notice or outstanding holiday.

Wish me luck in the job market hey?

Posted by: massifheed Jul 27 2011, 02:54 PM

Well, if it were me, I'd name the company and the person who grassed you up. That way at least anyone else working there who hasn't been inducted properly will know what they are dealing with.

One thing that struck me was that it was only down to your "mate" that your bosses found out. I may have missed it earlier in the thread, but in your FB postings did you actually mention the company by name? If not, then I would ask the company concerned to prove that you were talking about them specifically. If management from the company have no access of their own to what you post on Facebook then they wouldn't be able to provide any such evidence.

Looking at the bigger picture though, they would still be able to just get rid of you within the twelve month thing.

In any case I'm not sure I'd like to work for a company that will fire an employee on the word of a grass. Maybe you're better off out of there.

Good luck with the job hunt. There are places out there for those willing to work. And if you're as hard working as you suggest you shouldn't have too many problems finding employment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 27 2011, 02:59 PM

I understand that you are now unemployed, but who was the last company you worked for?

Posted by: blackdog Jul 27 2011, 04:11 PM

Not really living up to your nom de plume then?

Posted by: user23 Jul 27 2011, 04:46 PM

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 27 2011, 06:52 PM

Decarix, keep your chin up, it'll soon be a memory.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 27 2011, 07:32 PM

Well I've already had an interview for another place

I'll name the company after the appeal...they are refusing to pay me outstanding holiday money and I think that is disgusting so I am appealing the decision (but will definately not be working there even if I get to decide to stay or not. I will definately not be working for such a revolting company as to chuck me out on my one and only offence)

Posted by: gizmo Jul 27 2011, 09:35 PM

Decarix,

Hope your job hunting goes well.

If it starts to get you down though, just remember Dilberts Principle.

The “Dilbert Principle” means the most ineffective workers are systematically moved to the place where they can do the least damage, which happens to be management.

http://dilbert.com/fast/1995-02-05/

I had a similar experiance a couple of years ago with a long standing Newbury based retailer, but I am now in a better job where I am appreciated.

So keep your chin up and there will be several companies looking for new staff ready for when Parkway opens.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 27 2011, 09:47 PM

And if / when you get that job don't plaster your opinions of your new employer all over the internet!

Posted by: Decarix Jul 27 2011, 10:12 PM

Hahaha thanks guys, I am quite chirpy for someone who has just been fired I think!!
I have definately learnt my lesson Biker! I'm also thinking of trying to change my online presence completely so as not to get in any troubles at all.
Might remove this "profile" from here and start fresh with everything.
Facebook will say I work for The Flying Spaghetti Monster...but then I might get the religious people coming after me i]*sigh*[/i] I'll make something up about where I work.
NEVER will I put my feelings on a "public" forum, no matter how select it is again1 Corrrr blimey!

I will plaster my ex employers name all over the net soon enough though :-)
Funny thing is they were concerned how it made them look to their customers. Their custoemrs being the people I said this to, and a lot have them have said they will never shop in there again for being so absolutely ridiculous about this! Haaaaaaa.

Posted by: TheObserver Jul 28 2011, 11:21 AM

Although you did post comments you have to consider the way that it was phrased..

If you phrased the updated as a fact that potentially you are at fault.. e.g -
"My manager is a total *&%^^%*^*"

However.. you have a right to personal opinion.. so something like..
"I think my manager is a total *^&%$(**" is fine, as its purely your option, and not considered fact.
Therefore although your manager would probably take offence there is not a huge amount that they could do (especially as there is no proof)

You should then spin this around by saying that its all been taken out of context and that you would like to discuss your issues with your manager and work out a way forward to work together..

I would say the most they should be able to do is issue a first written warning..
Its also recommended to then keep a log of times that they have issues with you which isn't your fault, as they could be pushing you toward Constructive Dismissal (where they make things difficult for you in which either you resign, or they start to find faulty and issue further written / verbal warnings leading to dismissal), which is difficult to prove from your side (hence the log you should keep)

Hope this helps.. good luck, I'm sure a valuable lesson has been learnt here!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 28 2011, 11:39 AM

No, you don't. There is no such right. Publishing that your manager is an idiot is always going to be insubordinate, though whether it amounts to gross misconduct will depend on the circumstances. In addition to that it could amount to defamation, especially if it was published with malice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 28 2011, 11:47 AM

Whilst, ordinarily, these are reasonable points, they are mostly irrelevant in this particular case; the OP has served less than 12 months.

Other than discrimination, an employer can dismiss almost at will. The only thing to debate is notice and holiday. If the employer deems the reason to be Gross Misconduct, then notice and accrued holiday pay are at the employers discretion. The OP might have a case to redeem this, if they can prove that the Gross Misconduct is incorrect, but I am not up on the law in this regard. The OP claims not to have been advised of here obligations, but I am also not sure if this defence is strong, because some 'rules' can be deemed 'common knowledge'. Anyway, the cost to recover the accruements might not be worth the value that might be collected.

The lessons learned I say are:

• Do-not speak or write ill of your employer to anyone unless they are a under legitimate secrecy oath.
• Seek your employees handbook and all other obligatory files that pertain to your employment, and make yourself familiar with them.
• Do nothing that could be deemed controversial, or belligerent, until you have completed at least 12 months employment, unless it is necessary, as in a matter of law or health and safety. Even then, weigh-up the merits of the complaint first.

Posted by: TheObserver Jul 28 2011, 12:06 PM

Your absolutly right... "Publishing that your manager is an idiot is always going to be insubordinate" However, this falls outside of opinion, as this is worded as fact.

Providing you do not name your manager you are not damaging the reputation or the rights of the other party, and therfore have the right of expression to hold opinions. (Art 10 - Eurpoean Convention of Human Rights)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 28 2011, 12:14 PM

*good grief*

Firstly, Article 10 is not an absolute right as your right to an opinion must be balanced against the rights of others not to have their reputation impugned. Secondly, your conventions rights are against the state, private companies and individuals are not obliged to respect your Convention rights.

Posted by: Simon Jul 28 2011, 01:08 PM

and dont forget to delete the 'friend' who reported your comments

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 28 2011, 02:56 PM

I'm not sure how strong this argument is. We often speak and write in short-form. We often say things like: 'something is rubbish', but in truth we are saying: 'I think something is rubbish' - especially in informal company. In any case, whether the person said: 'I think someone is an idiot, or simply stated: 'someone is an idiot', it would have still resulted in the same outcome: the OP brought the employer into disrepute.

I think the person has a moral argument, insofar she was allegedly not advised of her responsibilities, but with less than 12 months service, you cannot sue for wrongful dismissal unless it is due to discrimination.

I think the OP has been treated wrongly, but the law is not is a position, it seems, to help.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 28 2011, 03:21 PM

Do we take it then that you are both black and a dog who will only comment on Pedigree Chum, the joys of a nice walk and leg humping, or are we allowed to have an opinion and comment on things unrelated to our username

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 28 2011, 04:06 PM

Don't jump to conlusions.

See this link here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dog

Posted by: Decarix Jul 28 2011, 10:19 PM

Very funny!

Posted by: Rosewinelover Jul 29 2011, 02:04 PM

Decarix - Someone at my work also did something similar to yourself. They had been at the company a long time and was liked by colleagues and customers - they received a final written warning.


Calling your Manager a idiot and hoping that your work colleagues/friend would agree with you on facebook - is rather stupid and immature....However I think you realise now how silly it was - all though you are now using another forum to air your problem (?) - and hopefully you will just get a written warning. As your friend/colleague never printed what you wrote - why not deny it?

If I was the Manager in question I would never be able to work alongside you again, so they probably hope you will be sacked. Also if I was employing you and saw you were slagging me off in fb then I would happily sack you. Also you seem to really dislike the shop you work for, so why not just leave in the first place?

I love fb....Yes it can cause more trouble that it's worth - but not for me so far )

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2011, 02:51 PM

Decarix was sacked. The message was posted on FB, but it was not public facing.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Jul 29 2011, 02:56 PM

How did I miss this when I read all pages!! Must of missed a page....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2011, 03:08 PM

Post 86: http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=1407&view=findpost&p=43983

Posted by: Roost Jul 29 2011, 06:24 PM

I've got to say that this company's (and perhaps the individual manager(s) involved) attitude is ridiculous based on the info from the OP.

I am for my sins now a manager (ouch, responsibility!)

If one of my staff has that opinion about me and I am told as such, then I would like to know a) that they hold the opinion and why.

Then I could examine my own performance and either explain it to my staff or improve in what I had done before.

Please tell me the company. I feel the need to make a 'managerial suggestion'!!

Posted by: Sidney Jul 29 2011, 09:39 PM

I can't help but feel that the whole Facebook issue was just an excuse to get rid of someone.

Posted by: Decarix Jul 30 2011, 01:09 AM

I would agree, but I've only done my job, better than expected; raising the sales of my department 5 places in 6 weeks, being multiskilled by being able to work in three specialist areas of the store. Not just a checkout assistant. If anything I would say they have lost quite an important part of their team.

But then that is how I see it. I don't know what they thought of me, probably wahey we have a dogsbody who will do whatever we ask

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2011, 09:59 AM

That's my view as well. If the OP is telling us the whole story, then the management have proven the OP to be right.

Posted by: factsonly Jul 30 2011, 02:38 PM

And if the OP isn't telling us the whole story then she has proven the management right......

Oi, Blackdoggy, am I allowed to say that?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2011, 02:39 PM

That isn't necessarily so. Surely one would need to know the content of the omission to come to that decision?

Posted by: factsonly Jul 30 2011, 03:06 PM

Exactly, and we would also need to know the omissions to validate the OP's claims. Really it's been a thread based on assumptions and the obviously biased opinion of the OP. Personally reading between the lines I'll side with the management.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 30 2011, 03:15 PM

That's very speciesist - why are dogs (of whatever colour) not allowed to have opinions on any subject under the sun.

Woof

Posted by: factsonly Jul 30 2011, 03:22 PM

Because they can't speak, now down boy

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2011, 04:34 PM

Interesting that you would do that. Are you are a 'manager' as well? I really can't see where you can read between the lines and see totally different picture. You wouldn't have anything to do with this would you?

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 2 2011, 09:16 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14367204.stm

Posted by: cornflake Oct 12 2011, 09:50 PM

Well, the appeal didn't go well.
The company have now fired two more people for ridiculous reasons, one being:
She was on a saturday only contract and was helping them out through the week while in summer hols, went back to college so could only do saturdays, like in her contract. And they decided not to keep her on after her probation period for not being commited to the company.
Another one got fired because she was having a laugh with a customer (that she didn't know socially) and the manager thought she was stodd about chatting with mates.
SERIOUSLY ridiculous company and if I'd known this I would never have worked there.

On the plus side. I am now a Techy in Basingstoke on 50% more pay than that cruddy little retail job with awesome progression prospects.

don't worry, I'm never writing ANYTHING about it on facebook and wont even post on here where I work now

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 12 2011, 10:01 PM

Any clues as to the name of the last company you worked for?



PS - It would be a good idea to punctuate your sentences with 'allegedly'.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 12 2011, 11:03 PM

If you're a 'techie' cornflake you'll know your every tap on the keyboard can be backtracked through your IP and other such computah-wizardry....

There's no escape once you've committed your thoughts to screen and pressed the <send> button....... WE know who you are.... < taps nose knowingly, winks and returns to reading The Times >

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 13 2011, 08:04 AM

Only if you have a keylogger

Sorry, just had to put that in there.

<taps nose and goes back to reading The Hungry Caterpillar">

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2011, 08:25 AM

Even then it doesn't prove who actually used the computer.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2011, 08:36 AM

Perhaps not...

But some people just leave an open goal and invite bosses to sack them.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206491/Woman-sacked-Facebook-boss-insult-forgetting-added-friend.html

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 13 2011, 09:15 AM

I mean people vent on social media sites and think it's wrong to fire over facebook. I don't have a facebook or anything but I have a blog and occasionally I'll vent about something but not in quite a way that would really be thought of as "fireable". Mostly it's just ranting about someone or something, it doesn't come across like I hate the job, probably because I like working where I'm at..

There may be occasions where it can be necessary but if the person is performing at work they should be allowed to do/say what they want as long as they don't include the company name...then again, my old company would give me bad references and I've yet to get my own back. Partly because at the company I'm at now, I have to deal with them from time to time as we back off some of our support for customers to them..and that would be really awkward.

Then again in the above example, the girl posting the comment probably was just dossing most of the day.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 13 2011, 09:40 AM

I didn't think companies were allowed to give bad references. Only non-committal ones such as "He turned up for work most days."

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2011, 09:50 AM

I understand that you only need to tell the truth, but a reference that doesn't have comments like ' the best thing since sliced bread', is 'code' for unimpressive.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 13 2011, 09:54 AM

What's the point of references if they are not allowed to be bad?
Makes them worthless doesn't it?

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 13 2011, 10:08 AM

No, they're not! But they gave me a bad reference anyway, which stopped me getting one position at company X, and they gave the company I am working (company Y) at now a bad reference as well - but they employed me anyway because the company director liked me and considering what they actually pay me, it wouldn't have been a huge loss had I turned out to be a piece of cheese. Which I haven't I'm kinda glad I got a bad reference at the first position as I like where I'm at right now...

I actually had to phone up my old company to confront them. I phoned my ex boss (technical director) and he didn't even return my call, so I had to call the director. His number isn't published but luckily I remembered it

They told company Y I was a "waste of space" (apparently) and told company X that I was fired for not doing my job properly, poor peformance, etc. This was told me from the person who interviewed me. When in actual fact, my performance stats were there in clear gold (and which I am proud of). It was on a support desk and I had the best statistics, lowest open-ticket time (the amount of time between issue reported and issue fixed) and I escalated (so took the issue to the vendor) cases only 17% of the time with continuing month-on-month improvements. This included both products I was specialising in and products I was not even trained in!

The real reason for my dismissal was because my supervisor (who was younger than me) had a strong dislike to me and he was the overall bosses "right hand man". Whatever he said went, often without further investigation. I was told I would have a "performance review" following a final (completely unjustified) warning in "2 weeks time". It was nearly 5 weeks later before that happened and then they told me to pack my stuff and go. Just like that. These things happen though, sometimes people just clash and can't work together and unfortunately I ended up getting shafted that time. Had I of been there for a year I could have taken it to a tribunal and I would have won and been filthy rich (har har har!!)

It was only after I'd checked through my contract when I was at home that I realised what they had done in terms of failure to give my notice, and I had to actually chase them up to pay me in lieu of notice. I was looking for work elsewhere for a month before this anyway as I felt victimised by the more senior engineers, treated unfairly (as in, when it was quiet and we had done all our work, they were allowed to browse ebay, various websites etc, and yet I was not), picked on in a malicious way...

They made me push the process along at quite a rate of knots though... but in the long run it's all worked out so I can't really complain.



It's slander. Legally the worst you can say is "I can confirm <person> worked here between <date> and <date> as a <position> however I cannot provide any further references or details" and then prospective new employers can read into that what they want. I think this is a good idea to have that sort of law because in the professional environment sometimes people clash and leave on bad circumstances, since a reference is subjective, depending on the person who wrote it, it's never going to be purely factual and unbiased. 95% of clashes leading to a dismissal will be between a regular employee and their line manager or someone else in a senior position who will have clout with management to make the dismissal happen. So generally it will be the employee who, rightly or wrongly, could be on the receiving end of a bad reference.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 13 2011, 10:24 AM

Not if it's true.

However, companies certainly don't want the hassle of going to a court to prove it.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2011, 11:44 AM

A bit like A Levels and Degrees these day then..... Everyone gets a 'Pass'. Can't have people feeling bad and worthless...

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 13 2011, 12:34 PM

I agree in a perfect world with honesty then bad references should be given if there is proof to back up the statements. Often though as I said many partings-of-company are on bad terms, often without actual proof of wrongdoing so won't be impartial.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 13 2011, 02:46 PM

Just being "a bit of a tit" wouldn't do then?

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 13 2011, 03:28 PM

Oh I'm a bit of a tit all the time. It's just how I roll.

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 13 2011, 05:09 PM

Actually, companies ARE allowed to give "bad" references as long as they are factual.


In fact, if a company were not to divulge to the new propective company that had written for the reference that the employee had been fired for, let's say theft and the new company was then also a victim of the employees theft then the new company could sue the old company for not including important facts about the employees service. Hope that makes sense?

Posted by: factsonly Oct 13 2011, 05:16 PM

The easy way is not to give references at all, unless your stuck with a liability of an employee then give them a glowing reference!

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 13 2011, 05:50 PM

I am not an Estate Agent or a Solicitor, but on a similar theme to references, a domestic vendor
has to disclose " bad blood" with a neighbour such as hedges, fences, noise, abuse... anything really.
I have not sold a house for almost 4 decades. So I don't know fine details.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 13 2011, 06:02 PM

Post 126......
I am too old for this sort of thing but the quote from Spartacus
brings back fond memories of the anarchy of Private Eye. A 50 years memorial book published recentlyl
Copies are available from a bookstore near you.
The first deletion is almost Beardsly!

Posted by: JeffG Oct 13 2011, 06:13 PM

There are contributors here who are obviously in the legal profession, so it would be interesting to hear their take on this.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2011, 06:17 PM

The basic rule is that you can say what you like provided it is demonstrably true, and you haven't signed any agreement to keep quiet.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 13 2011, 06:28 PM

I tend not to , but have been advised by our HR department that it is OK to give a bad reference, so long as you can back yourself up when questioned.

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 13 2011, 06:37 PM

Sorry Strafin but isn't this exactly what I said? References should be legally truthful for both a "good" and "bad" reference!

Posted by: cornflake Oct 13 2011, 06:45 PM

I would say who the company was but I am afraid that somehow it'll come back to bite me in my donkey later on.
I wouldn't want to put myself in another situation such as this.

AND I still only said "Managers are idiots" and never named the company or implied I meant M manager nor advertised where I worked on the profile.

All I can say is that it is quite a big company found on the highstreet.

Posted by: cornflake Oct 13 2011, 06:49 PM

Do you actually know who I am? I think I've kept things here simple enough not to be in any trouble for them...unless I haven't? Please advise.
I am mega scared of getting myself into more trouble somewhere or somehow

Posted by: CBW137Y Oct 13 2011, 08:11 PM

Will ask tomorrow (I work for a team of lawyers, including employment lawyers). I will say though, that I showed the original post to a member of the team way back when, and my colleague didn't have much sympathy for the OP. Sorry - prob not what you wanted to hear!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Oct 13 2011, 08:44 PM

Contrary to obvious public misconceptions, it is NOT illegal for an employer to give a bad reference. BUT whatever they give has to be true, just in case they need to back it up later.

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.lc=en&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073791195&r.s=sl

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2011, 08:45 PM

I bet their attitude would have been different if the OP was asking for professional advice!

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 14 2011, 03:21 PM

Okay, nobody seems to want to read my posts or believe them! Jeff, my job used to be Employment Law for a very large Multi-National Company so please believe me everyone when I say IT IS LEGAL TO GIVE A BAD REFERENCE AS LONG AS IT IS FACTUAL!

As far as the original post by Cornflake is concerned it depends on exactly what was said on Facebook and whether it could be attributed to the company in question by friends or outsiders as this can then be classed as "bringing the company into disrepute" and therefore classed in the Company's Policies & Procedures as a "dismissable offence"

Also, if the employee had been employed for less than a year, including the contractual notice period then the employee could not bring a case of unfair dismissal unless Company Procedure had not been followed or unless the employee had been discrimated against as set out in the current Employment Law.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Oct 14 2011, 04:08 PM

Wakey wakey, that's exactly what I said, plus I gave a link to further advice.

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 14 2011, 04:09 PM

But I said it before you so, wakey, wakey you

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 14 2011, 04:20 PM

You gave no click-through link and seemed to be saying he was one of those who hadn't listened. Do try and keep up.

If you make a statement designed to help someone it's always best on here to show other places where they can get advice for themselves or more information to back up your original assertion.

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 14 2011, 07:18 PM

The last big company I worked for had a policy that was sensible and pragmatic.

A reference for a departed employee could include the dates of their employment, their job description, any courses attended or qualifications gained and the manner in which their employment contract was terminated (e.g. redundancy/resignation) if this was specifically asked. Comment on their performance (even if thought fair comment) was not permitted.

Especially in the case of having got rid of a troublesome employee, why would a manager (or the HR/Legal dept.) want in any way to encourage further time-consuming correspondence with the individual, his legal representative or indeed any other party. We were busy enough.

In an earlier post it has been suggested that a former employer could be sued by the new employer for not divulging "important facts". Outside of any contractual arrangement between the two (employing) parties, I would be interested to see this happen.

Rgds

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 14 2011, 09:29 PM

Yes, I couldn't see what duty the former employer owed the new one.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 15 2011, 12:52 AM

So, what do you want - an argument with people who agree with you? Actually what you said meant absolutely nothing, just because you write something on here doesn't make it fact. You cited no references for where you got your knowledge from, or included any information as to your background or any indication as to why you believe what you said to be true. I could not provide a link, but did not state anything as a legal fact, just wrote what I had been told and who had told me. Take it or leave it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2011, 08:43 AM

I think Chesapeake made quite a reasonable post, I'm not sure what has got your goat up!.

One may write what one likes; true or not, but you might have to explain yourself it in a court of law. There is no law saying you may not write negative things about someone. To avoid falling foul of the law, it only requires you to be factually accurate and that you don't break other laws of discrimination and the like.

http://www.askamanager.org/2010/06/its-not-illegal-to-give-bad-job.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3065319.stm
http://www.totaljobs.com/careers-advice/money-and-legal/references

Posted by: blackdog Oct 15 2011, 09:17 AM

Honesty?

If you give a non-committal reference I guess no one could blame you. However, if you give a glowing reference to someone you know to be useless (purely in the hope that the new employer would take away a problem for you) then I would have thought that it could be a form of fraud - or miss-selling!

Posted by: factsonly Oct 15 2011, 09:48 AM

It's a friggin' reference not a legally binding contract. An employer is not obliged to provide a reference at all, and if they do it's only an opinion. An employee may have been rubbish or fantastic at their job it doesn't mean they will carry that through to future employment. All this tosh about legal issues is simply inane comments by employees who simply don't understand how business works.

Rant over!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2011, 10:13 AM

Only if someone is buying something.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2011, 10:17 AM

And this is one of the potentially good things of a debating forum, people can learn something from the discussion and therefore hopefully improve on their knowledge. Why you should get all uppity about it seems silly. We all can't know everything immediately.

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 15 2011, 10:32 AM

How would the new employer be removing your problem? If you are giving a reference your problem is already gone (as it is a bit of a clue that the current employment contract is terminated).

Posted by: blackdog Oct 15 2011, 02:48 PM

Can an employee not ask for a reference before he resigns? As a line manager I certainly wrote references for staff who were job hunting, not all of whom got the job they were after.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 15 2011, 06:31 PM

As Vodabury said, outside of any contract between the parties it's not obvious what cause of action the new employer might have against the old employer for not giving a reference that mentioned the faults of the applicant, but it's possible the old employer owes the new employer some statutory or common law duty of care that Chesapeake knows about and if there is it would be good to know what it is.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 15 2011, 10:52 PM

Like everything, treat others how you would expect to be treated. If you give a reference for an employee to another company they in turn might give you a reference back for another employee if you need one.

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 16 2011, 11:20 AM

Hope this link helps explain things in a little more detail?

http://www.michaelpage.co.uk/content/15611/advice-on-references.html

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 16 2011, 03:10 PM

Quoted from the linked webpage:

"Employers do not have to give a full and comprehensive reference. Given the potential liabilities involved, it is common for employers to give only a short statement confirming that the individual was employed, the dates of the employment and the employee's job title." [My emphasis].

I will say again, why would you want to go much further? With a company reference, I would keep it entirely factual and neutral.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2011, 03:20 PM

Perhaps some people (even employers) are human and want to.

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 16 2011, 07:27 PM

Did you not read this section below? Although it is sometimes best practice to keep references short and neutral (and sometimes Company Policy) there is the added obligation to the possible new company if there has been "major" problems with the outgoing employees service. This of course would have had to have been fully dealt with through the company's disciplinary procedure. It could not just be conjecture.


<h2 style="clear: both;">"What are the respective rights and obligations?</h2>Negligence

Obligation:

An employer owes a duty of care to both the employee and the recipient for the content of a reference. The employer must provide a true, accurate and fair reference.

Rights:

If an employer fails to take care in providing a reference, the employee or the recipient may be able to bring a claim in negligence for any damage suffered as a result."

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 17 2011, 08:32 AM

Yes I did. In respect of the 2 points you have referred to:

1. The "duty of care" appears to refer to the content of the reference, not the giving of a reference. "True, accurate and fair" means exactly that. It does not mean "a duty to disclose."

2. Similarly, the words are "fails to take care" not "fails to disclose" and "care" is not specific. The writer of a reference could be carefully observing their company policy, or carefully respecting a confidentiality in not disclosing something. The sentence (in the article) following your quoted one is clearly talking about an employee bringing an action.

I read the article you refer to as one where the author is avoiding saying the employer has to disclose any particular matter, and is aimed at a situation where the (ex) employee may be the claimant with regard to an unfair or inaccurate reference.

In any event, the article concludes:
"In summary, an employer does not:
• have to give a reference unless the employee has a contractual entitlement to one
• have to give a full and comprehensive reference."

(the situation may be different concerning TUPE transfers, other contractual arrangements and regulatory obligations)

Regards

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 17 2011, 06:06 PM

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Vodabury with which I am in full agreement.

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 17 2011, 06:38 PM

Thank you, My Lord - I will see you later for a G&T in the Garrick!

Seriously, I am not giving an advice or a judgement, merely my interpretation of something I read and this is IMHO.

We are all used to having to disclose facts, to HMRC or Police for example. However, I do not see an overriding legal duty to disclose something to a third party with whom we have no previous connection or existing duty. If there is a relevant stated case that says otherwise, then I would be very interested to hear of it.

I think you are more likely to be sued for something you say, rather than for something you don't say. Hence, many companies being so brief in their references (if they give them at all).

Anyway, up to the individual company as to what they see fit.

Thanks.

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 17 2011, 08:11 PM

I am not an estate agent. But for a vendor there are rules.
Slightly on the topic of disclosure/ references.Do you not have to disclose,
animosities with neighbours over for example hedges, access, barking dogs.

Posted by: Vodabury Oct 17 2011, 08:17 PM

House conveyancing is a situation where 2 parties are entering into a contract with each other. A sellers' property information form has to be completed and questions answered truthfully, but it does not remove all responsibility from the buyer to make his own enquiries.