Final Written Warnings...

themull1

How can you have a final written warning without anything before it? it sounds like the carehome is using this to maybe dismiss her or make her resign - how is it against anything when the carehome and no names are mentioned? Blown out of all proportion as usual.

tomtontom

It doesn't matter that she did not state the name of her employer, at least three people know and I would assume other friends also know where she works.

Has she worked there exactly two years, more or less?

The issue here is one of respect and dignity. She should not be posting about what the residents have done, especially not in a way that could be seen as sarcastic and derogatory (whether that be her intent or not).

themull1

Torry_Quine wrote: »

If it were my relative then I would be complaining in the strongest terms that something so personal and confidential had been treated so carelessly. It's not all respectful to write about elderly, vulnerable people like this and it probably wouldn't be hard to find out who it was.

I do hope she doesn't lose her job but learns from this.

Its nor personal though because there is no name of old person and no name of care home, it was a passing comment. thats it.

tomtontom

themull1 wrote: »

Its nor personal though because there is no name of old person and no name of care home, it was a passing comment. thats it.

You clearly have no idea how seriously CQC and social services take these issues. There is no such thing as a passing comment when it comes to working with the vulnerable.

tomtontom

themull1 wrote: »

How can you have a final written warning without anything before it? it sounds like the carehome is using this to maybe dismiss her or make her resign - how is it against anything when the carehome and no names are mentioned? Blown out of all proportion as usual.

A FWW can be used where the incident is sufficiently serious, there is no need for a first written warning beforehand.

PHILANTHROPIST

person30 wrote: »

No, there is no link to where she works on the facebook page, and I think she said she has around only 3 people on her FB page that work with her, but again nothing to say they work with her.

That is all that was written on the post, there was a comment underneath it to say that she'd walked into a wheelchair, but again, no mention to of the care home name or company, and the fact that it was her fault for doing so! Nothing to say that anybody hit her with the wheelchair etc.
She has been there 2 years to the date of her disciplinary order, she has no other disciplinaries on her file although she does have a rep for saying things how she sees them (not always a bad thing, but people in the village don't like it).
The "investigation" involved the manager telling her what evidence (screenshots) they had and that they were told to push for instant dismissal but he decided to do a FWW instead to be fairer on her.
The disciplinary hearing is next Friday.

There is no policy on social media, we have never been briefed on this, there is nothing in the grievance policy nor the employee handbook she has been given.

Although it may seem harsh to be disciplined for the above the reality is that an employer has free reign to do whatever they like to an employee so long as it is not a criminal act.

Whether an employer acts fairly is ultimately for an employer tribunal to decide.

In this instance if there is no clear social media policy, and if the employee has a clean disciplinary record , then a final written written warning may be an acceptable outcome.

See link below which gives an overview re this subject area :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9089826/Tweeting-about-a-bad-day-could-lose-you-your-job.html

themull1

tomtontom wrote: »

You clearly have no idea how seriously CQC and social services take these issues. There is no such thing as a passing comment when it comes to working with the vulnerable.

We'll have to differ on this one. If she said ' hey i work for sunnyside care home' and mr jones spat in my face etcetc, thats different. But a generalised passing comment is making a mountain out of a molehill.

fruitedeli

Torry_Quine wrote: »

If it were my relative then I would be complaining in the strongest terms that something so personal and confidential had been treated so carelessly. It's not all respectful to write about elderly, vulnerable people like this and it probably wouldn't be hard to find out who it was.

I do hope she doesn't lose her job but learns from this.

So you think talking about elderly and vulnerable people per se is gross misconduct. No one's been identified and no confidential information had been disclosed. You're just overreacting on something that's really nothing.

FBaby

The only reason I can think where this could be deemed unacceptable is if the old lady could be identify, ie. she is the only one of that age at the home.

redpete

I wouldn't advise the defence that she "didn't identify who she works for". I'm sure many of her friends know where she works.