Is this classed as Gross Misconduct ??

WPN

Jarndyce wrote: »

Eh? It is ONLY a court or tribunal that can DECIDE whether or not a dismissal was lawful.

Yeah - but not whether the discipline was too much or too less. Whether it was dismissal for gross misconduct for one message on facebook without previous or gross misconduct after multiple warnings beyond reasonableness (say 30 warnings).. if its lawful dismissal it is fair and just.

You are right ultimately, but generally one determines lawfulness by the law (such as following correct procedure) and past cases. Its not always doable to get a tribunal to decide cases which are vexatious without merit. There is probably a million possible actions to do to get dismissed from work, it would be irrational theoretically for all the possibilities to reach tribunal to determine whether it was lawful or not... instead more focus is on the type of dismissal, protected characteristics, whether employer followed the correct procedure etc.

I didn't exactly word that too well hehe

Jarndyce

WPN wrote: »

Yeah - but not whether the discipline was too much or too less. Whether it was dismissal for gross misconduct for one message on facebook without previous or gross misconduct after multiple warnings beyond reasonableness (say 30 warnings).. if its lawful dismissal it is fair and just.

You are right ultimately, but generally one determines lawfulness by the law (such as following correct procedure) and past cases. Its not always doable to get a tribunal to decide cases which are vexatious without merit. There is probably a million possible actions to do to get dismissed from work, it would be irrational theoretically for all the possibilities to reach tribunal to determine whether it was lawful or not... instead more focus is on the type of dismissal, protected characteristics, whether employer followed the correct procedure etc.

I didn't exactly word that too well hehe

You can say that again. I've never read so much nonsense in my life. Even the bits that make sense don't make sense.

Emmzi

Just weighing in with support Jarndyce. Keep talking sense, such a lot of tosh on this thread!

dandelionclock30

These big companies have their own HR and lawyers, they will have got advice re whether it was a lawful dismissal or not.They will not have put themselves at risk in an ET.All they have to prove is was this gross misconduct? and did they follow a proper process and was the result within a band of reasonable responses.
The poster Jarndyce is correct
Best for her to see an employment solicitor just to confirm but I dont think she will be going anywhere with this.

sarahjayne1977

One of my mates posted on Facebook about her so called payrise! about how much she buy with the extra 15 quid a month. taking the water.
Someone from her head office reported her and she was sacked for it, she never mentioned name of company etc. She had spoke to ACAS before she was sacked and was told to check her terms and conditions.
After she was sacked she appealed and won and she now is back working at the company doing the same job.
My mate deleted all the comments about 20 mins after putting them up as knew it had been wrong, But the person from head office had screen print and had copies!

So i would say she may well be sacked for it

DVardysShadow

Uncertain wrote: »

I would agree having emphasised one word.

Assuming her appeal is not upheld there may be enough of a grey area for it to be worth considering a claim here.

As always the exact rights and wrongs are not the only aspect. A determined individual with half a case can cause a company a lot of aggravation and expense which they won't get back win or lose.

Some companies will tend to fight almost regardless of cost. Others will look to settle to minimise expense and hassle. One advantage of a settlement even over and above a tribunal win is that it can include an agreed reference. This costs the company nothing and can be far more valuable to the ex employee than a few £K cash.

I agree with the above. It is worth fighting after very detailed consideration of exactly what was posted. If as OP says, it was only along the lines "Its !!!! that **** is making people redundant just before Christmas..." then the damage to be considered is releasing the information into the public domain and an undirected comment about how unfortunate the timing is. Nothing appears directed at the reputation of the company along the lines of "**** are out to spoil Christmas" It is a fine line to be argued.

Bobl wrote: »

What is not considered here is what stage the potential redundancies are at, if it is only in the consulting stage the company would not want it to be broadcast, it could have a damaging impact on the stock price. So, given the damage it can do to a company I believe the action they took is perfectly reasonable.

Take heed people, do not discuss work on Social Networking Sites.

Ahh! The company could not claim it is not in the public domain - they have told their employees and presumably not sworn them to secrecy. If it would have an impact on stock price, they would be expected to declare it to the Stock Exchange anyway as I understand it.

serious_saver

Jarndyce wrote: »

You can say that again. I've never read so much nonsense in my life. Even the bits that make sense don't make sense.

I agree with Jarndyce. If you were trying to get a point across it is either incorrect or you have totally failed to make it clear. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.

IF it made it to tribunal they would have to look at exactly what happened (not clear at this point) and whether the response was reasonable given the specific circumstances.

Whether she has case or not the best thing she could do is get advice from a professional. If she contacts acas they may well be able to give her an indication either way. A tribunal is the last stage of a lengthy process which would initially involve some kind of mediation with acas anyway.

If she is part of a union then it is worth getting in touch with them and asking for access to their lawyers. If she has paid union membership then she is entitled to access this service and they should be specialist employment experts. However, ultimately it WILL end up going through acas, at some point, if she decides to go ahead with it.

Uncertain

serious_saver wrote: »

Whether she has case or not the best thing she could do is get advice from a professional. If she contacts acas they may well be able to give her an indication either way. A tribunal is the last stage of a lengthy process which would initially involve some kind of mediation with acas anyway.

The problem is the ACAS call centre does not constitute "advice from a professional".

I have no problem with their services at a higher level but call centre is just that and staffed by people will limited training.

She needs an opinion from a specialist lawyer. Hopefully this is available via a union or insurance otherwise she will have to pay apart from maybe the first half hour.

serious_saver

Uncertain wrote: »

The problem is the ACAS call centre does not constitute "advice from a professional".

I have no problem with their services at a higher level but call centre is just that and staffed by people will limited training.

She needs an opinion from a specialist lawyer. Hopefully this is available via a union or insurance otherwise she will have to pay apart from maybe the first half hour.

I didn't say that she shouldn't see a lawyer. In fact I said the opposite.

Yes the acas helpline is a call centre but they can still provide advice and point her in the right direction if she does need a lawyer. I don't understand why you would not encourage someone to contact an organisation that specifically exists to deal with situations like this.

Nicki

serious_saver wrote: »

I didn't say that she shouldn't see a lawyer. In fact I said the opposite.

Yes the acas helpline is a call centre but they can still provide advice and point her in the right direction if she does need a lawyer. I don't understand why you would not encourage someone to contact an organisation that specifically exists to deal with situations like this.

Because the people who man the call centre at ACAS have only very basic training, and there have been numerous examples on these boards of them giving incorrect advice. The wrong advice is worse than no advice at all, as it will almost always cost you money (either because you don't claim when you can, or you do when you really really should not and incur expense as a result). Advice from a qualified solicitor, often free if you have legal insurance cover as many people do on their home policies, is far far superior