Unfair dismissal?
Comments
-
Well I could tell you that I have a degree in computer science and 8 years industry experience, but you would say that counts for nothing I'm sure. Your analogy is based on a complete lack of understanding of what a session is, and case law on the computer misuse act demonstrates that the analogy I have presented is what judges are going to rule by.
I think this discussion has highlighted how poor the general publics knowledge of how computers function is!
Can you provide any case law? since you mentioned it, and are using it to solidify your position.0 -
Well I could tell you that I have a degree in computer science and 8 years industry experience, but you would say that counts for nothing I'm sure. Your analogy is based on a complete lack of understanding of what a session is, and case law on the computer misuse act demonstrates that the analogy I have presented is what judges are going to rule by.
I think this discussion has highlighted how poor the general publics knowledge of how computers function is!
Is this the degree you failed? Just asking.
I expect many of us answering do understand how computing works, as well as having completed law degrees.0 -
Tigsteroonie wrote: »Just to add a quick comment - it's been suggested upthread that the OP's Linked-In account usage was personal. I think it was both business and personal, the OP worked in recruitment and Linked-In is an appropriate tool to use to advertise vacancies and headhunt potential candidates. However, in using it as a work took, It would have been wiser to separate work from personal by having two logins (business and personal email addresses), or at least not indulging in personal messaging.
Discussion of OP having a recruiter license would support your reasoning.0 -
Can you provide any case law? since you mentioned it, and are using it to solidify your position.
There's the case of Gareth Crosskey, sentenced to 1 year in prison for "hacking" into someones facebook account.Is this the degree you failed? Just asking.
I expect many of us answering do understand how computing works, as well as having completed law degrees.
You're certainly not one of them, of that I'm sure.0 -
I think there's more going against you than for you.
I don't see how the Facebook is a breach of privacy; you put the information into the public domain.
The Linkedin thing probably is a breach of privacy (as explained above) but I'm afraid employment law will probably trump that in this instance - especially as you have committed misconduct by sending the CV's to your old boss which demonstrates that you have abused the facilities the company provided for you to do your job.
If you were there more than 2 years, i think an unfair or constructive dismissal case would be difficult - you accepted the change in location, and change in role. They don't sound the sort of company to meekly throw their hands up and admit liability, so do you really want the hassle for potentially small gain.
You have every right to feel angry, you don't need advice on whether you should or should not. How you feel is how you feel. the question is what to do next. Do you feel angry enough to try to do something about it, or can you chalk it up to experience and move on?Debt 1/1/17 - Credit Cards £17,280.23; overdrafts £3,777.24
Debt 5/1/18 - Credit Cards £3,188; overdrafts £00 -
There's the case of Gareth Crosskey, sentenced to 1 year in prison for "hacking" into someones facebook account.
You're certainly not one of them, of that I'm sure.
That case involved preparation, it was premeditated. There were actions used, to discredit the victim. The victim was not an employee of the defendant. It literally has no similarity, except for the word 'facebook'.0 -
On the topic of them reading your personal correspondence on their asset, I don't think it is that clear cut, though possibly not from a computer misuse perspective but the more basic human right. From a Privacy website:
"In April 2007 an employee at a Welsh College won a case against her employer, who had been monitoring her emails. She claimed they were intruding on her privacy; they claimed they were trying to find out whether she was misusing work hours. She won because the employer was shown to be infringing her right to a privacy.
But don't presume the courts will rule in your favour: in 2006 a survey of UK businesses showed that a third had fired an employee in the last 12 months for email misuse. Stop to think before you forward that cheeky Christmas e-card: otherwise you could be one of the next ex-employees."
In the OPs case, sounds like you did more wrong than right, I wouldn't be pursuing it.
Full link for those interested:
http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/emailprivacyatwork.html
It will be interesting to see how GDPR impact monitoring, I think we'll all (those that do it) need to be clearer on what is being monitored and likely seek approval, something not required currently under DPA (the approval part). I'm certainly no expert though.0 -
That case involved preparation, it was premeditated. There were actions used, to discredit the victim. The victim was not an employee of the defendant. It literally has no similarity, except for the word 'facebook'.
On the contrary, that case proves that unauthorised access to online accounts does amount to computer misuse under the act.
Premeditation is not a consideration in whether an offence has been committed under the act or not, and the relation between the offender and the victim is not pertinent, why do you think it would be?On the topic of them reading your personal correspondence on their asset, I don't think it is that clear cut, though possibly not from a computer misuse perspective but the more basic human right. From a Privacy website:
Full link for those interested:
http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/emailprivacyatwork.html
It will be interesting to see how GDPR impact monitoring, I think we'll all (those that do it) need to be clearer on what is being monitored and likely seek approval, something not required currently under DPA (the approval part). I'm certainly no expert though.
I'd be interested to know what type of monitoring is being referred to in that particular case because all employers IT departments have the technical ability to look at emails sent and received through work email accounts, they don't need to "monitor" it as such, Office365 even retains deleted emails for 90 days by default which I have found useful when a little forensic work has been required. But if they were taking screenshots then yeah that's long been established as a really bad thing for employers to do.0 -
laurenphipps85 wrote: »yet another constructive post from comms69
You have obviously missed the irony of your post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards