And blogging claims the job of yet another brain dead pillock. Mind you if I were her boss I'd have done it a little differently; put a printout of her post in an envelope along with her P45 and hand deliver it without saying a word.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Here in the states, the boses online language would have likely gotten him fired by the company's HR department.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well then I'm glad we're not a bunch of wet, namby pamby, litigation-happy, overgrown children like the yanks. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
What's the deal with the trial period? They act like, if this had happened after her six months were up, it would've been different somehow. Would she have been able to appeal it or file for unemployment or something? Or does the trial period just mean that they can fire her for anything they like without explanation?
The possibilty of stupid mistakes like this one of many reasons I don't have a FB account anymore.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think the trial period means she could be terminated without cause.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I'm not sure he can do that. It depends on her contract. In the UK you often find that for what her employer called a "Trial Period" the contract states that the employer does not need any notice to fire the employee. After the "trial period" the contract will usualy state how much notice is required to terminate their employment, either fixed or incremental depending on length of service.
However, as far as the law goes (Employment Rights Act 1996) you (as an employer) don't need to give notice to any one who has worked less than a month. After a month you get a weeks notice minimum by law. After 2 years this goes up a week for each year.
An employer also has a legal responsibilty to follow a statutory process when dismissing someone (e.g. in writing, explaination of why etc). But if you do fire someone, either unfairly or in breech of contract, you can take it to (a leagly binding) tribunal. Yo can however give someone pay in lieu of notice, and the employer can waive their right to notice, but only if both parties agree to this.
In short, she might actually be able to sue him for unfair dismissal. After all if I call my boss a wanker outside of work, I am expressing my civil rights to free speach, allbeit slanderousley in this girls case. That's a very different matter in law. If I do so in the workplace I am possibly (allthogh no necsesserily) breaking my contract.
Fortunatly they both sound like utter twats and I hope nothing but misfortune befalls both of them.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Speaking as someone who's don a lot of temp work over the years, yes if you're on a "trial period" you're not technically a "permanent" employee so like a temp, you're not entitled to any notice. After the trial period, assuming things go smoothly you then sign a permanent work contract and are entitled to the legal minimum notice for dismissal, increasing incrementally the longer you stay on. So as I understand it, that boss is acting within his rights and I'm pretty sure sure publicly slandering your employer is a genuine violation of the standard terms of employment, do I don't think she'd have much of a case in terms of unfair dismissal.
Having said all that, 6 months seams a bit long to me (3 months was my longest) so I have to wonder how sure he was of her to begin with.
The moral of the story? If you're going to slag of someone that can impact your ability to make a living, best to do it anonymously.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well then I'm glad we're not a bunch of wet, namby pamby, litigation-happy, overgrown children like the yanks.
And I'm glad we have freedom of speach in public venues without fear of retailation.
It's not so much that she got canned but the bosses unprofessional attitude that I think would be at issue- she called him a "Pervy wanker" and he freaked out because he took it as an anti-gay thing.
Both are morons, frankly.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
No. She was accusing him of sexual harassment and he pointed out how unlikely that was considering he's gay.
I gotta say, I don't think he was that far out of line. I may not have lowered myself to swearing at her, but some people have to learn lessons the hard way.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He should not have responded to her online at all- he should have just run it through his HR department to cover his ass (legalwise, that is) and had someone higher up or in the HR department fire her. Firing someone while upset is never the best idea and can get people into a lot of trouble.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well then I'm glad we're not a bunch of wet, namby pamby, litigation-happy, overgrown children like the yanks.
And I'm glad we have freedom of speach in public venues without fear of retailation.
It's not so much that she got canned but the bosses unprofessional attitude that I think would be at issue- she called him a "Pervy wanker" and he freaked out because he took it as an anti-gay thing.
Both are morons, frankly.
Ah, but the Freedom of Speech in the United States is freedom from the GOVERNMENT retaliating against the speaker. There are no laws or freedoms that prevent an employer from terminating an employee over something said.
And we have such instances here in the states too.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Exactly. They may not be able to sue her for what she wrote, unless it was libelous (which it kind of was). But there's no law that says they have to employ her. People get fired for bad attitudes all the time.
Granted, he probably shouldn't have responded on-line... but she started it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think it could be libelous unless she mentioned her boss' name specificly.
And what if she had another job and was bitching about that guy?
It's strange- if she was out somewhere (say at dinner) and her boss happened to be there and overheard her complaints, I really dount she could be fired- freedom of speach and the hearsay nature of the encounter. I guess the Internet is all the proof one needs now.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Also depends on how much authority her boss has. If he has the authorioty to hire and fire people under his mangement, and the trial period allows him to let her go at his discretion, overhearing her, seeing her do something, whatever might aloow him to "not continue" her employment. And unless she could prove he let her go because of some kind of discrimination, he's probably well within his rights.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
So long as she was still in the trial period, he doesn't need ANY justification for a dismissal.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)