Morrisons suspends staff for wearing a Poppy

stebiz

Haven't read all the posts but he's a muppet. He works in a food store for starters. Secondly it sets a precedent as anybody could wear badges that suits them or their beliefs. I'm now reading a petition online of over 250k wanting a state funeral for the soldier. That is so disrespectful for all his colleagues that have fallen. It is very sad what has happened but justice will be done.

Tropez

ValHaller wrote: »

Indeed. But the correspondence relates to the employer's contract with the employee. Given that it relates to a contract, the employee is not internal to the employer for the content of the correspondence. Contract correspondence is external communication and would fall outside that line of gross misconduct.

It was addressed to a single person regarding disciplinary action being taken against them, on official corporate letterhead paper, regarding specific incidents that occurred during the execution of duties in the workplace and was clearly designated as private correspondence regarding the internal disciplinary procedure.

We would regard it as correspondence between employer and employee, which is an internal matter. Reproduction of the letter, in full, without authorisation would be a violation of contractual terms.

The employee handbook with which we are all issued (although I don't know if Morrisons issue one, nor what it may contain) has an entire section dedicated to the disciplinary process, in which it states clearly that matters pertaining to an ongoing disciplinary procedure may not be discussed outside of the workplace (except in circumstances such as Acas mediation) until a conclusion is reached. Adherence to the employee handbook is considered part of the contract.

ValHaller

Tropez wrote: »

The employee handbook with which we are all issued (although I don't know if Morrisons issue one, nor what it may contain) has an entire section dedicated to the disciplinary process, in which it states clearly that matters pertaining to an ongoing disciplinary procedure may not be discussed outside of the workplace (except in circumstances such as Acas mediation) until a conclusion is reached. Adherence to the employee handbook is considered part of the contract.

That is your workplace. The fact that they have included this explicitly is a fair indicator that they do not feel secure that this is the default position.

Note too that the ban on discussion expires at the conclusion of the process.

And again, even though you say the disciplinary process is internal, it is actually external because it is a process of management of the employment contract. The employment contract is subject to a fair amount of legislation and to intervention and review by the courts. I have no doubt in my mind that it is external.

As for the correspondence and the use of letter headed paper - again, you will find that it is the same letter head as is used for external correspondence and not the stationary used for memorandums. It is also addressed to the employee at the home address, again indicating it is external.

prowla

The imbeciles who said they shouldn't wear them should consider the fact that they are living a life where they are allowed to express themselves freely because of the people whose sacrifice is represented by the poppies.

ValHaller

prowla wrote: »

The imbeciles who said they shouldn't wear them should consider the fact ....

That's the problem, there is always 2 lots of imbeciles, each of which thinks only the other lot are imbeciles

Tropez

ValHaller wrote: »

That is your workplace. The fact that they have included this explicitly is a fair indicator that they do not feel secure that this is the default position.

Note too that the ban on discussion expires at the conclusion of the process.

And again, even though you say the disciplinary process is internal, it is actually external because it is a process of management of the employment contract. The employment contract is subject to a fair amount of legislation and to intervention and review by the courts. I have no doubt in my mind that it is external.

As for the correspondence and the use of letter headed paper - again, you will find that it is the same letter head as is used for external correspondence and not the stationary used for memorandums. It is also addressed to the employee at the home address, again indicating it is external.

None of that proves that it is external. I receive correspondence to my home address about a variety of subjects to do with work, all of which would be regarded as internal and all of which would see me chopped pretty quickly were I to photograph them and release them into the public domain.

My employer include explicit information about the disciplinary process because it is considered the correct thing to do under the Acas Code of Practice, something that employers are not legally required to adhere to, though it is encouraged that they do so.

And while it is true that there is legal recourse for employment contracts, that does not make the standard disciplinary practice external. Employment tribunals are for where there is a case (or at least a belief) that a company has acted outside the law; however, simply because the law can intervene does not equate that all disciplinary procedures are inherently external.

The law does not specify what can be regarded as gross misconduct due to the fact that it can vary by business type and business need. The law merely intends to prevent employers from abusing this lack of clarity by forcing employers to implement internal policy responsibly and by ensuring that people have recourse to illegal contract terms.

There is, however, no legal mention of contract-related business between employer and employee being regarded as external and therefore open to the public domain. Indeed, Acas would regard such as being part of the Express Terms or Incorporated Agreement sections of a contract. There isn't a single statutory requirement for employers to allow contract information or disciplinary information to be spread around the Internet without recourse.

Mankysteve

Morrison's produce fresh food in store. In wide range to areas. If you found a pin in your food, who be the first up in arms. This is why this policy exist it not there to be difficult it's there to protect the public. Same reason why they have a nail polish/fake nail ban. They do allow poppies to displayed at the usually time of year but not with pins Morrison is simple following common sense.

ValHaller

Tropez wrote: »

There is, however, no legal mention of contract-related business between employer and employee being regarded as external and therefore open to the public domain. Indeed, Acas would regard such as being part of the Express Terms or Incorporated Agreement sections of a contract. There isn't a single statutory requirement for employers to allow contract information or disciplinary information to be spread around the Internet without recourse.

The very fact that there is a contract which is governed by law means that the employee employer relationship is external.

Companies do have internal 'contracts' - but these are not true contracts simply because contract law does not apply and you would never get a court to take jurisdiction.

Given that the contract of employment is external and there is nothing in contract law governing confidentiality of contracts, you must look to the contract itself to establish the confidentiality requirements. You cannot generalise and you cannot with the information we have say that Mr Austin is guilty of gross misconduct for publishing the letter.

Tropez

ValHaller wrote: »

You cannot generalise and you cannot with the information we have say that Mr Austin is guilty of gross misconduct for publishing the letter.

But at no point did I say he was guilty of gross misconduct.

You argued that you couldn't see that Morrisons could have "silenced" him and I responded that in my place of work, and for that matter many others, there are terms in place as part of contracts of employment or employee manuals that would forbid an employee from placing such information into the public domain. This is true, and fully legal for an employer to stipulate.

I also clearly stated that the penalties for violating the term in the case of my company could be considered gross misconduct, or it could be handled with a lesser disciplinary procedure.

At no point did I state that the individual in this case was guilty of gross misconduct, nor did I state that he would be if he worked for us.

As for the "external" and "internal" thing - there is no definition in law regarding what is external to the company and internal to the company when concerning issues of correspondence, therefore, I consider this to be at the discretion of the employer, which is legally the case.

ValHaller

Tropez wrote: »

As for the "external" and "internal" thing - there is no definition in law regarding what is external to the company and internal to the company when concerning issues of correspondence, therefore, I consider this to be at the discretion of the employer, which is legally the case.

• I am quite clear about this. If the employer writes to me with anything relating to the work I do, it is internal.
• If he writes relating to my contract of employment it is external

For the latter, I keep a file at home. If I am told how to make widgets, it stays at work and when I leave the job it stays there. If I am told my hours of making widgets are changed, that is contractual and it comes home. The external stuff is stuff which I may need after I leave the job.