Suspended since July!!!

[pa38]

Hi I am about to seek legal advice with my problem, but thought I would post on here first.

I was suspended on the 8th July following an anonymous letter alleging inappropriate posting on a social media site, this hinges on privacy setting's, but I can prove that they where in place.

 

My main concern is the process... I have been accused of gross misconduct and the disciplinary hearing is at the end of this month.

The paper work says I was suspended on the 5th not the 8th, I had an investigatory interview on the 24th July, and didn't receive the minuets until the 16th September, to amend and return.

Two days later I received the disciplinary papers dated the 1st Aug!!

The letters also refer to our meeting on the 29th not the 24th..

I know it sees like picking at straws, but as the "person on the Clapham omnibus" it does seem a bit messed up, and something as important as this needs to be right.

I have worked in my role for over 10 years, and its a local authority, and would welcome others thoughts...

[smokejumper]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is " person on the clapham omnibus"

 

No doubt Emmzzi will help out here but in the meantime, I'll add my 2 cents and just my opinion.

 

Firstly, Damm facebook etc, everyone seems to be getting in trouble using it.

 

Have you been given all the evidence they will be relying on at the hearing. Although dated 1st Aug, they have still given enough notice, but does show that after your interview, it would appear they only gave a few days thought to continuing.

 

I don't e4xpect the dates will have much effect, they will just amend them if you bring to their knowledge, this is not a crimminal court where these things may have a relevance.

 

Does it look like they have a case against you, regardless of privacy settings, have they seen the posting on facebook ? them selves.

 

I know your main concern is the process, but for any help, members will need a bit more information.

 

My view is if the anonymous letter is all they have, then no case to answer, but if they checked and can see for themselves it will be answerable.

 

Also check your facebook " friends" sounds like one of them needs to be taken off the christmas card list.

[pa38]

The "omnibus" expression is a layman's point of view... The anonymous letter writer helpfully sent screen shots of the post's, the main point of the investigatory interview where the post's where public.

If you look at the supplied screen shots the little figure of two people are present indicating friends and friends of friends only, also they have included my opening page which includes the line "if you want to see my posts and pictures ask to be my friend" all of which imply it's not public.

The post's are just bad taste jokes you share with friends, no mention of work, or the type of client I deal with.

[smokejumper]

As I see it, how can this screen shot be proven to be real, I'm sure something like that can be produced ( faked ).

 

Or have you admitted it is real and then argued the privacy case.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here, but they can say it's not private because they have been sent a copy.

 

Remember the worse part of these disciplines is, it is judged on probability.

 

The bad taste jiokes ( not judging as Bernard Manning was a saint compared to me) where they sexist, racist, homophobic or any of the other frowned about stuff.

[ericsbrother]

The catch-all is bringing your employer into disrepute. Standard gross misconduct in employment contract but what does it mean when considering social media. Interpretation has varied but there are cases of people being properly dismissed for sending jokes to friends who then copy them onwards and without identifying the employer.

As asked, how did your empolyer become aware of the postings and in what context-did someone report you to them and what relationship would they have to you-colleague/client/random person?

I cannot think of anything that would bring a local authority into disrepute that they couldnt do by their own actions a hundred times worse.

[Pusillanimous]

The person on the omnibus, as it were, might just be a busybody and there was nothing wrong with your FB page. If you suspect there was, ask to see the firm's policy on this, as if they have omitted to have one (you'd be surprised how many have failed to update older electronic policies) then it cannot be fair for them to expect you to know that you are barred from posting on FB for things usually considered as normal. If you wrote about work, work colleagues or clients and you have the employer stated in your profile, you might be in trouble. Otherwise, don't worry about it. FB pages are known to be often hacked with "pals" posting mischievous status updates "for a laugh". Think about your defence.

[renegadeimp]

DOes your company have a social media policy? If so, what does it state?

 

Even if your profile is completely private and only friends can view your posts, remember, you are still in violation of your employers policies and can be reprimanded.

[smokejumper]

Did you admit to these jokes? and now claiming the privacy situation as your defence.

[Offkey81]

http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/18FC766D-4F3A-4F09-BA7A-FE071CFBCDAD/0/hrinformlawupdate201202.pdf

 

gives a good explanation of caselaw in the area

[Emmzzi]

Hi, what is the reason for the suspension please?

 

And how many work colleagues have access to your FB profile?

[pa38]

Hi all

I was dismissed for gross misconduct on October 31st last year, my appeal is on Monday 20th February, that's 2 months 20 days a little excessive I think.

I know of the 3 month time limit if I have to take matters further, but I consider the time taken to be excessive as I am still not working, employers don't like gross misconduct.

I worked for a local authority and wonder if there is anything laid down about time needed for appeals to be heard.

Also I was dismissed for a Facebook related issue, but have a letter from the head of personnel saying they don't have a policy on social media, is this of any use, or will it be covered under general conduct?

 

 

Thanks

[Emmzzi]

"Reasonable" time period - so you need to allow a bit for holidays, and if there had to be a new investigation

 

Facebook usually falls under either harrassment or bringing the organisation into disrepute. Or "messing about on the internet when you should be working." Policy not often required.

[smokejumper]

That dam face book again. GGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR,

[Emmzzi]

It's not the fault of the technology.....that's like saying "damn pen and paper!" as you send your mate a note slagging off your boss....

[pa38]

It wasn't it works time or did I mention work, just tongue in cheek topical comments.

That were private not public....

[Emmzzi]

well, I guess someone was offended by them.

 

What grounds are you appealling on?

 

Also if you are sure you have a case I'd get your ET forms in now.

[pa38]

A case that went to the high court very similar to mine, and the Judge found no disrepute, and section 8 of the human rights act, my right to privacy

[Emmzzi]

Identical or similar?

 

Either way, if you think you have a case, lodge your ET forms and pay your fee.

[pa38]

The case was disciplinary action for bringing a local authority into disrepute because of comments they considered offensive, same as mine. The judge ruled no disrepute because it was clearly not work related.. Smith v Trafford

[Emmzzi]

what exactly did you say, and who saw it?

 

I can call someone an offensive racial slur, they work somewhere else, and someone from work sees it and is offended by it. That'd be a problem for an employer!

[pa38]

It was an anonymous letter that I have proved was malicious not a genuine complaint, and the posts were topical tongue in cheek humour, and my settings were private friends & family only, so no one unless invited could view

[smokejumper]

Emmzzii,

 

Not blaming the technology, just annoyed someone else has got themselves in trouble on there.

 

Really need to think about stuff you put on there, it doesn't appear to matter about the privacy settings.

 

 

It's not the fault of the technology.....that's like saying "damn pen and paper!" as you send your mate a note slagging off your boss....

[Emmzzi]

It was an anonymous letter that I have proved was malicious not a genuine complaint, and the posts were topical tongue in cheek humour, and my settings were private friends & family only, so no one unless invited could view

 

Ok - I can't offer an opinion without the exact wording, and I can understand you not wishing to post that. I think you need to see a solicitor.

[Emmzzi]

Emmzzii,

 

Not blaming the technology, just annoyed someone else has got themselves in trouble on there.

 

Really need to think about stuff you put on there, it doesn't appear to matter about the privacy settings.

 

You are completely correct smokejumper! Privacy settings mean very little.

[steampowered]

The case was disciplinary action for bringing a local authority into disrepute because of comments they considered offensive, same as mine. The judge ruled no disrepute because it was clearly not work related.. Smith v Trafford

 

In this case, the facebook comment was a statement that the poster did not agree with gay marriage. The court ruled that this was not misconduct as it was not offensive and did not bring the employer into disrepute. However there have been several other cases where it was held that the employer was justified in sacking people for things they post on facebook, such as slagging off their manager.

 

It is impossible to comment on which side of the line you fall on without knowing what you posted. However given that this was a gross misconduct dismissal I'd think it would have to be pretty bad for the employer to justify dismissal.

 

If you want to issue ET proceedings then you MUST file your ET1 with the Tribunal before 30 January. The fact that the appeal process is still ongoing does not affect the time limit.

 

The local authority will have a policy for the time appeals should take.