Is this classed as Gross Misconduct ??

jfh7gwa

Jarndyce wrote: »

She needs to put all her efforts into her appeal - play on her previously unblemished record (assuiming she has one) and be as contrite as she can.

This.

Rather than focusing on whether it's ok for them to do or not (I think you can tell by the responses here that you know it is at least acceptable to start dis proc against her), she needs to focus on defending herself properly.

however, since the OP insinuates that this is the "worst" (?) thing she's written so far, i fear the OP's relative may be in very hot water - i know that my current employer has fired 2 previous employees in the last few years for something similar, and was a motivating factor (told to my unofficially) in a third, who also had time keeping issues and wasn't really intersted in the job anyway.

i'm still amazed people do this sort of thing, tbh...

cottonhead

I agree with the other posters that if she has said something derogatory about her company in a public setting that is a clear breach of trust and most importantly saying / doing something that may be harmful to the business activities in any way is usually gross misconduct and warrants dismissal. There have been a number of hiugh profile cases of others being sacked after using facebook in this way.

If she has worked there 4 years and never been in trouble before I would suggest she writes a strong apology, highlighting that she has never been in trouble before and accepts that she deserves a final written warning than wait and see if they take her back.

Also if the company really is **** maybe she should take this as an opportunity to find a job somewhere she likes more. Sometimes companies will agree to at least give you a good reference if you apologise and leave quieltly. Somoene in my office viewed !!!!!! on the office computer ( still cant believe he did it ! ) the company agreed to let him resign immediatly or face dismissal.

Azari

I'm going to disagree with just about everyone here.

Look at what she said: ""Its !!!! that **** is making people redundant just before Christmas...".

It's a simple, unarguable, statement of fact (for anyone with normal human feelings).

If she had said: "**** are !!!!s for making people redundant just before Christmas...".

Do the people in charge of **** believe that it's great that they can make people redundant just before Christmas it would have been a different matter.

It's hard to see how the comment could possible bring the company into even a fraction of the disrepute that they might be brought into by making people redundant just before Christmas.

Pete111

Azari wrote: »

I'm going to disagree with just about everyone here.

Look at what she said: ""Its !!!! that **** is making people redundant just before Christmas...".

It's a simple, unarguable, statement of fact (for anyone with normal human feelings).

If she had said: "**** are !!!!s for making people redundant just before Christmas...".

Do the people in charge of **** believe that it's great that they can make people redundant just before Christmas it would have been a different matter.

It's hard to see how the comment could possible bring the company into even a fraction of the disrepute that they might be brought into by making people redundant just before Christmas.

I'm not even going to begin to list for you the number of 'simple, unarguable, statements' regarding my work that could see me instantly dismissed if I published them on a public forum.....

Azari

cottonhead wrote: »

Also if the company really is **** maybe she should take this as an opportunity to find a job somewhere she likes more.

You seem to have made the same misreading that almost everyone else here has.

She didn't say that the company were "!!!!".

She didn't even say that "it" is !!!! making people redundant just before Christmas.

She said "Its !!!! that **** is making people redundant just before Christmas..." - who can argue with that?

Saying

It is "!!!!" that the government are reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners".

is not the same as saying:

"The government are !!!!s for reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners"

Azari

Pete111 wrote: »

I'm not even going to begin to list for you the number of 'simple, unarguable, statements' regarding my work that could see me instantly dismissed if I published them on a public forum.....

Good!

.....

Pete111

Azari wrote: »

You seem to have made the same misreading that almost everyone else here has.

She didn't say that the company were "!!!!".

She didn't even say that "it" is !!!! making people redundant just before Christmas.

She said "Its !!!! that **** is making people redundant just before Christmas..." - who can argue with that?

Saying

It is "!!!!" that the government are reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners".

is not the same as saying:

"The government are !!!!s for reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners"

You don't get it. This is the equivilent of a backbencher IN the govt saying this (either one) on a public forum...

What do you think would happen in that instance?

Azari

Pete111 wrote: »

You don't get it. This is the equivilent of a backbencher IN the govt saying this on a public forum...

What do you think would happen in that instance?

If Cameron had any sense he would simply say: "Yes, it is, and it is !!!! that the country's finances are in such a state that it is necessary". (Much the same, mutatis mutandis, as anyone with any sense in the company involved would say.)

What do you think he would do?

Withdraw the conservative whip from the backbencher concerned?

Have you any idea what a fool he would make of himself if he did that?

Pete111

Azari wrote: »

If Cameron had any sense he would simply say: "Yes, it is, and it is !!!! that the country's finances are in such a state that it is necessary". (Much the same, mutatis mutandis, as anyone with any sense in the company involved would say.)

What do you think he would do?

Withdraw the conservative whip from the backbencher concerned?

Have you any idea what a fool he would make of himself if he did that?

He would indeed. And rightly so.

Pete111

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Yea off course but im inclined to believe their isn't one in place for this case.

Ok look. I'm impressed by the way you have found an ET case that helps (but only helps) your argument but to state that you don't believe a 'well known National I.T. company' would have an I.T. policy is well...a bit silly really.