www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/driver-wins-tribunal-after-being-sacked-for-facebook-comments-1.112954
I find the last paragraph here very interesting - pre Facebook, he would have ranted to all his family and friends and this would not be seen as being dismissable. Good point.
|
He won his case (partly) because his employer had not followed the correct disciplinary procedure. That's not the same thing as saying he can't be disciplined for bringing the company into disrepute.
Hardly any offence justifies immediate dismissal. Usually this has to be something like violence, grossly offensive behaviour, damaging company property, etc.
But if a company has a policy in place regarding acceptable behaviour on a public medium, and an employee breaches that, he can be invited to a meeting, the matter discussed and the facts ascertained, and then a punishment proportional to the scale of the breach and the harm sustained can be awarded.
This decision has to be subject to the right of appeal.
If all these procedures are followed correctly, then appropriate punishment up to dismissal can result.
But a director simply getting cross and saying this man must go is not acceptable procedure.
|
>>>She thought it showed a lack of respect for the company, was uncalled for and would be damaging to the business.<<
Why would any employee be expected to respect a company which doesn't have the most basic checks in place to see that their vehicles are legal.
Uncalled for.....Quite rightly he was angry at being fined for not having a document that should have been checked and issued before being asked to drive by his employer.
Damaging to the business....so it should be, other hauliers have to meet legal requirements and their subsequent costs, so what makes them different?
Having said that, I still think he was wrong to post it on Facebook from a moral point of view.
Pat
|
|
Maybe there was more to it than reported, but Argos sacked someone (a long serving employee who had cancer) who moaned about work on Facebook and he didn't even mention the company.
|
Seeing it from the employer's side, the facebook phenomenon is a nuisance, and at worst seriously damaging to companies.
All companies now have a crowd of idle ill-wishers who love nothing better than to pick on successful people and organisations and spread malicious rumours, mostly through facebook. They appear not to work themselves, but are resentful of those that do. Disaffected or merely careless staff sounding off in public play straight into their hands.
Of course there are bad companies who ought to be named and shamed, but playing to the crowds on facebook simply reinforces the idea that anything goes, there are no morals and no sense of loyalty or decency any more.
|
I think the final paragraph sums things up well
His comments could not be seen by the public at large and the tribunal considered the company overreacted.
They said pre-Facebook, Kass would have “vented his frustration by telling his friends and family of the incident directly or on the telephone,” and this would not have been grounds for instant dismissal.
Sometimes Facebook doesn't have any more power than good old chatting and blethering to friends. In fact it could possibly be argued that a one to one conversation is more likely to be remembered than a "like" on a facebook post.
|
If you drive someone else's vehicle for work, be it car, van, truck etc, how do you actually know if it's Mot'd, and more importantly, insured?
You can carry a copy of the Mot and insurance, but in the case of the insurance, a copy of a certificate doesn't necessarily mean it's still in force or covers that particular use.
|
Lorry driver wins unfair dismissal case - Cliff Pope
