Is this classed as Gross Misconduct ??

micflair_2

Just my opinion,

The company who I work for have a policy on this. If you go online slating them for any reason its gross misconduct for giving the company a bad name/image. Your opinions on the people who pay your wages/bills should be your own private opinions, or at least within people who work with you. Putting them out there on facebook for all the world to see is asking for problems, its just the same as going in the street and telling everyone you pass your opinions, not very clever.

Fiddlestick

redlooney wrote: »

I'm not an employment expert but wonder, is this sufficient to describe it as Gross Misconduct and does she have any redress in law for unfair dismissal ??

Yes.

My own contract has a specific section on social networking and making disparaging comments about the company does count as Gross Misconduct.

I can't say that I agree that they should be able to take action against me based on private comments made in my own private time, but that's what my contract says and that's what I've signed, so my own personal feelings don't really come into it

jfh7gwa

Fiddlestick wrote: »

My own contract has a specific section on social networking and making disparaging comments about the company does count as Gross Misconduct.

so does mine, and so has every employer I've worked at for the last few years if i recall correctly

i find it most strange that some people are claiming they work in IT organisations and this hasn't been explicitly covered in the contracts of employees - i don't even work in the IT industry, how can IT sector employers be so far behind the times? my own isn't exactly at the forefront of technology or that up to date on legal stuff (had a few issues with SMP deductions , for example - something which was a very black and white affair regarding their legal powers, but they still managed to try and claim they could deduct stuff from it without checking the legalities). sooo.... i do find this discussion a bit odd, and had taken it as a given than it was in 99% of people's contracts over the last few years.

scheming_gypsy

jfh7gwa wrote: »

so does mine, and so has every employer I've worked at for the last few years if i recall correctly

i find it most strange that some people are claiming they work in IT organisations and this hasn't been explicitly covered in the contracts of employees -

it's because a contract is a personal agreement between you and the company, whereas anything like this is generic. So people will be right in saying it's not in their contract, but they've completely forgot about company polcy.
Contracts are agreed and signed but policies are forced on you as a global change. Why redo everybody's contract when they can modify an IT usage policy and email it to everybody / make it available on the intranet.
It's the same with a lot of things, people will say it's not in their contract but it doesn't have to be as it's in the company policy which they've agreed to abide by etc

Pete111

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

it's because a contract is a personal agreement between you and the company, whereas anything like this is generic. So people will be right in saying it's not in their contract, but they've completely forgot about company polcy.
Contracts are agreed and signed but policies are forced on you as a global change. Why redo everybody's contract when they can modify an IT usage policy and email it to everybody / make it available on the intranet.
It's the same with a lot of things, people will say it's not in their contract but it doesn't have to be as it's in the company policy which they've agreed to abide by etc

100% Correct.

We change company policies from time to time and our IT policy changed early last year to reflect Social media do's and don'ts. We usually send a quick email round the company to inform staff with a link to the policy on the intranet...but most employees won't read this.

Doesn't make in any less valid tho!

jfh7gwa

that makes sense, scheming_gypsy.

and Pete111 i think that was how it happened the first time i was aware of it in my contract (old employer)... but it mostly talked about online use and mentioned blogs. this was well before Facebook. sometime in 2003 or 2004 if i remember correctly? must have been before the start of '04 because i left that employer that summer.

so... yeah - it's been a part of my work restrictions for at least 7 years ish.

meer53

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

I am an IT guy.

I work for a tech company that has 10,000 centres in over 160 countries.

We DO have an IT policy

We DO NOT have any clause made with reference to Social Networking or comments made in the public domain.

The generic IT policy states things like - misuse of email, abuse of internet access at work, surfing !!!!!!, installing unauthorized software etc.

On a side note, I totally agree with Azari.

LOOK AT WHAT SHE SAID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She did not say the company are S**T
She said she thinks It is S**T that COMPANYX are making people redundant.

Nothing in that comment brings the company in to disrepute.

Look at the 2 cases - which do you honestly think this comment/situation falls into?

It's a no brainer baby.

Knickers in a twist or what :eek:
We don't actually know what was said on Facebook do we ? Even the OP doesn't know for sure. Pipe down !

Personally, it wouldn't have to be in my contract or company policies (it is by the way) surely it's a matter of common sense not to post things like this ? Engage brain before opening gob sort of thing ?

serious_saver

tomjonesrules wrote: »

I am not a solicitor, but I do have a professional interest in this area. I am not against free advice services per se, I just find that ACAS are a particularly poor example (as well as the EHRC since the merger).

I can appreciate that your personal experience may have led you to the opinions that you have. Personally I think that you ought to give reasons if you decide to criticise an organisation the way you have.

Instead you came on the thread and decided to have a pop at me and a couple of other people for making the suggestion.

It was only after a number of questions that you decided to give any information on why you are against accessing support from acas.

My personal experience, as someone who has used the service, has been that they are helpful and supportive. There was no issue with them compounding the problem. However that was some time ago and things may have changed. I'm prepared to admit that quality does change over time.

I will however agree (whole heatedly) that the EHRC are as useful as a chocolate teapot.

EDIT

On a slightly different note. A couple of people have started debating social media policy. It really depends on a number of things. What was posted, how private the post was and whether the company has a policy that covers it.

We don't know any of the above for certain so there's no point arguing about it. To be honest either side of this debate could be correct, depending on the specific circumstances, but as we don't know the full details, why stressed out about it?

tomjonesrules

demelza1953 wrote: »

I know/you know/most of us know this.

The problem is in finding such an employer. At this point in history the law hasnt kept up with protecting employees from facebook sackings and many employers are taking advantage of this current gap in our legal protection -hence some of us have to self censor whilst others get sacked.

So its wrong to have to self censor but thats what is apparently necessary at present unfortunately (e whilst we wait for the law to catch up)

The law is not going to 'catch up', in fact the law is reinforcing the principle of mutual trust and confidence, which has been implied into employment contracts for ... well, as long as they have existed!

The reality is that employees/ individuals have not realised the damage that social media, when not used constructively, can do.

tomjonesrules

serious_saver wrote: »

I can appreciate that your personal experience may have led you to the opinions that you have. Personally I think that you ought to give reasons if you decide to criticise an organisation the way you have.

Instead you came on the thread and decided to have a pop at me and a couple of other people for making the suggestion.

It was only after a number of questions that you decided to give any information on why you are against accessing support from acas.

My personal experience, as someone who has used the service, has been that they are helpful and supportive. There was no issue with them compounding the problem. However that was some time ago and things may have changed. I'm prepared to admit that quality does change over time.

I will however agree (whole heatedly) that the EHRC are as useful as a chocolate teapot.

EDIT

On a slightly different note. A couple of people have started debating social media policy. It really depends on a number of things. What was posted, how private the post was and whether the company has a policy that covers it.

We don't know any of the above for certain so there's no point arguing about it. To be honest either side of this debate could be correct, depending on the specific circumstances, but as we don't know the full details, why stressed out about it?

Remind me where you explained your reasons as to why you think ACAS are so great? Did I not answer your question as soon as you asked, no?

I did not 'have a pop' at you, I simply pointed out that your advice was flawed (as did others). I would politely suggest that you need to stop being so precious, and accept that some people will disagree with you.