Disciplinary for non work related comment on Facebook

[coolchris]

A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever.

Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

[Conniff]

Hard to judge a comment and give an opinion when we don't know what that comment is.

[Sidewinder]

Does the comment relate to a person in the photograph?

 

Agree with Conniff - it is impossible to advise in much more than general terms unless we know more details!

[coolchris]

Sorry, the comment is relating not to a person , but to the sentiment of the photograph. The argument is solely based on the fact that the photo was taken within the workplace and tagged as said workplace. The photo was deemed inappropriate but does not contain a person, just objects.

[honeybee13]

A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever.

Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

 

Hello there.

 

Are both people being disciplined or just the second person who made the 'five word' comment please? This isn't very easy to follow, but I can see why naming a workplace could lead to problems.

 

My best, HB

[coolchris]

Hi. The one taking the photograph and the one who commented. Sorry it is a little hard to follow, but its difficult to word in such away as to not divulge any names/facts etc, that a search might reveal. I need to keep this as general as possible. thanks.

[rebel11]

Hi cool

 

Here's some info:- http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3438

[Emmzzi]

Right now they are just having a hearing. Preemptively remove your comment, all tags, defriend all work colleagues, and set your security to private. There may be grounds, you need to check what your work policy says and how clear and explicit it is. Do you have a union rep?

[coolchris]

There is a union rep, however the basis of the charge seems to be that the comment condones the taking of the picture. This is clearly not the case as the comment refers to the sentiment of the picture, not the taking of the picture itself. There seems to me to be 2 elements to this: 1. the physical taking of the picture in the workplace 2. the sentiment of the photo. The powers that be say the comment condones the taking of the picture, whereas the comment is clearly agreeing with the sentiment, nothing more, nothing less. It seems there is a very weak case on their part and they are trying to use the comments/words out of context to fit their agenda. The works policy is bringing the company into disrepute. The comments, as stated, do not mention the company whatsoever or are about anyone that works there. The happen to be under a photo that was tagged by the originator of the photo as being taken at workplace. Please note what I pointed out: 2 elements. First element: photo taking - yes that is punishable by hearing. 2: sentiment of the photo, wherein company not mentioned in any way, or anyone from company; merely agreeing with the sentiment of the photo and its implications.

[Emmzzi]

And the company view may be that instead of commenting on the picture the only appropriate action was to report it. By commenting you have lost the "I didn't see it" defence.

 

Take advice from your rep, people have lost jobs for similar actions.

[coolchris]

Im not saying that the picture was not seen, if you have read what I have written. There is no question of a "I did not see it" defence whatsoever. Read my last post to fully understand the situation please.

[Emmzzi]

I have absolutely read what you have written.

 

I do not agree that you are blameless and have a robust defence. That does not mean I have not read things properly.

 

The company may take the view that by failing to report the picture, you condone it. Without knowing the details I cannot offer a more robust opinion than that. My guess it the pic was some form of horseplay, and your comment may only have been "blimey", but that may be enough to land you in it.

[coolchris]

Sorry, but how does failing to report a picture condone it? So in that context: everyone who works for the company who saw the picture is, in effect , also guilty. Thought crimes are not part of law just yet! If this was a court of law this would be an absolute joke and thrown out. And I also did NOT say that I am the supposed writer of the comment!

[Emmzzi]

well, I asked what your company policy said. That will help a lot more than your or my view on what is right. Is there one?

 

you also said you had a union rep. You will be able to talk more freely with them. We are having to guess because you cannot give specifics.

 

So that is 2 actions for you.

[coolchris]

The policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.The PICTURE can be seen as brining the company into disrepute, but the comment was for the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to. From what I can gather it seems these types of "disciplinary's" are based on Napoleonic law in that one is guilty until proven innocent. It is also a matter of interpretation and putting words out of context to match a "managers" way of thinking. And also does not the disciplinary committee have a conflict of interest if they are attached to the company?

[Emmzzi]

The burden of evidence is not the same as court of law. If the picture brings the company into disrepute - and someone has not only not reported it but commented on it so made clear they have seen it and not reported it - then things are not clear cut. And it's on "balance of probabilities." But look - they either wrote it or they didn't!

 

At the moment for all I know it's a jubilee weekend photo and the comment is agreeing with something massively racist. In which case yes, sacking!!

 

I really can't help with such vague details. You really do need to talk to someone you can share details with. We'll be going round in circles for days with me saying "the law says..." and you saying "yes but!"

 

Talk to the union tomorrow.

[coolchris]

OK, I agree that this can be going around in circles, but let me just point something out: there is NO racism involved whatsoever.Words implanted like that can give readers false perceptions, and yet again bend the actual situation. The power of words and their interpretations, is at the heart of the situation, and this is so well played out here as well. I would like comments from others if that is possible, but thank you for your time anyway emmzzi.

[coolchris]

I really would like some other opinions on this please.....

[transient]

Think if you need more opinions you need to be more detailed you cannot expect people to give opinions on pure assumptions based on your posts quite frankly

[stu007]

Hi

 

Further to your Post #15

 

You have pointed out that the company policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.

 

You the further state the picture can be seen to bring the company into disrepute

 

You them state but the comment was on the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to.

 

1. The company have classed this picture as bringing the company name into disrepute by the person that posted it.

 

2. Your comment has also been seen by the company as bringing the company name into disrepute.

 

a. You need to remember you agreed to uphold the companies polices and by your own admission the picture brings that company into disrepute.

b. Your action by commenting irrespective that it was on the sentiment of the picture or not has not been seen like that by your company why. Your actions by commenting on a picture bringing the company into disrepute and as an employee of that company has been seen by the company as bringing their company into disrepute and in breach of company policy.

 

IMO you could be on sticky ground hear due to your admission that the picture and its contents do bring the company name into disrepute and then you as an employee commented on the picture and its contents although as you state it was on the sentiment but I am afraid that is not the way an employer would see this.

 

This is the sad world of Social Networking and the dangers to employees with a comments with even the best intentions that an employer may see it in a totally different light.