gross misconduct/social network site

[Blasphemous]

form the info i got,its was an empty property of a housing trust,she is a trades person,the comment was {wont not take cup of coffee from this tenant}.but people she knows on social site.commented an she replied with street name/area.no name of companies/tenants none there/not even profile on network where she works.so called friend must have shown photo of bad kitchen/flat to bosses or with comments been passed on through site.

You still haven't answered this:

First off, do the company have a 'Social Networking' and/or 'Use of IT Policy'? And if so, what does that policy say with respect to the use/posting on, Social Networks and forums?

 

[^woody^]

Any company policy is irrelevant

There is an implied code of conduct in and outside of work

 

[gingerbreadman]

no there isnt a policy,or nobody has signed or seen one.the only evidence is photo/comment of bad kitchen & name off street/area.no company name,tenant or place of work.she is suspended on allegations of gross misconduct & bringing company into disrepute,confidentiallty.

 

[cajar]

There doesn't have to be an exhaustive policy, and posting the street name, and picture of the flat is indeed gross misconduct and it's very likely she'll be dismissed.

 

[holmslaw]

She's an idiot who should never have been employed in the first place. Anyway, I'd sack her for using a social networking site, who needs to employ people with IQ's that match their shoe size

 

[Bodgeitandleggit]

no there isnt a policy,or nobody has signed or seen one.the only evidence is photo/comment of bad kitchen & name off street/area.no company name,tenant or place of work.she is suspended on allegations of gross misconduct & bringing company into disrepute,confidentiallty.

The last word "confidentiallity" sums it all up......she will be dismissed

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't really undertstand what she did and how it relates to her position!

Did something get removed from the thread earlier on or what? Anyone care to humour me?

 

[JohnD]

as far as I can make out, she is employed by a company and in the course of her employment she visits peoples homes.

She took photographs of someone's home that she was admitted to in her course of her employment, and published them online with disparaging remarks about the cleanliness of the person's home, and some local identification to help the home to be identified.

 

[Trazor]

As far as I can make out.

Yes, none of it is very clear is it, all answers based on supposition.

 

[gingerbreadman]

ok i spoke with woman earlier,she was sent to empty property to carry out maintenance/repairs on behalf of housing trust.the place was in described as such a hole,so for evidence she took photo on her mobile.the boss was shown photo and said no-one to work at empty property,until cleaned up.later on that evening she is talking to her friend privately,and ends up trying to post photo/comment about {would you have coffee here}to friend.post ends up to all friends,so from that boss finds out,and the charges are alledged.im not trying to defend her actions,but its a bit harsh to lose job when place was empty,no names of company,logos,or people involved.picture was kitchen and street name

 

[Blasphemous]

Any company policy is irrelevant

There is an implied code of conduct in and outside of work

Company Policy is not 'irrelevant'. Granted there IS an expected/implied standard of conduct. But companies need to protect themselves where social network sites, forums etc are concerned. The fact that someone has an opinion of their work and states that opinion on a social network does not necessarily equate to a case of Gross Misconduct. It is also important that individuals are informed that they should outline that their posts, opinions, statements, ideas etc are their own and may not be that of their employer/company.

As has been said, the details are somewhat sketchy. Based on what I can decipher from the outline given, it would appear that she has taken a photo/s of a tenant's home, posted the images on to social network site and appended comments which give her opinion of the state of the residence and indeed identify where the residence is. Whether that brings the company into disrepute we do not know, we don't really know what has happened. I'm confused by the initial post:

she is suspended ,an has recieved charges on disrepute/gross misconduct.

OK so Gross Misconduct it alleged.

union is now involved.

God help her!

what was meant to be a joke/comment has gone wrong, she has shown a statement of apology

This is the section I'm confused by. Reading that, has she been given an 'apology letter/statement' to sign perhaps? If that is the case then who is the apology for? Why, if the investigation into the alleged Gross Misconduct is ongoing, is she being asked to sign an apology?

EDIT: I've just seen gingerbreadman's post above. I'd still like to hear the answer to the final questions I posed.

 

[Alarm]

As no names were given (apparently) and the place was vacant it is no worse than many on here photographing poor/bad installations in various threads.

If the contract states nothing about this the worst should be a verbal warning and a rewording of the contract.

 

[joinerjohn]

Apparently it's an empty property though, so no tenants live there or have been named. The company have not been named, nor the housing trust. Personally I can't see that the ex tenant, company or housing trust has been brought into disrepute. Admittedly a bit stupid to post a photo on a social networking site,but she hasn't harmed the company has she?

 

[JohnD]

oooh, I recognise that flat, it's where Mrs Scroggins used to live. What a filthy cow she must be!

 

[billonisland]

You say it was 'such a hole' that the boss said no-one was to work there until it was cleaned up. He is just as bad except he did not post a picture. ok your friend should not have posted the picture but to say 'would you have a coffee here' does not seem like gross misconduct to me. Surely she would require a verbal warning then a written warning before being dismissed.