employee makes racist comment on fb

[bounce]

Hi

I have an employee that used to be constantly on Facebook At work even though This wasn't allowed, we picked this up with her a number of times and still continued.

On one occasion she must have left her self logged in and we saw a comment she made as we had had a word with her about the constant internet usage and she had put something like 'they told me off for this and that, that's what you get for working for p*k*s and few other things...we were furious about this racist comment...

As the only way we could see this is because she left herself logged in, could we take disciplinary action over this? Obviously we don't want to employ anybody with this attitude.

 

[Ashley_Price]

I would suggest you seek legal advice on this. She shouldn't be making racist comments, but then the question comes up of whether she should be on FB during work time, what does their contract of employment state?

 

[FirstClassVirtualOffice]

Yes you can, you have every right to see what she is doing on your computers in work time or even if it was lunchtime, she can't just say what she wants. So there could be multiple issues to raise with her, one being using internet for personal use on work computer (in or out of work time), another for doing personal stuff in work time, another for making racist comments (irrespective of done in or out of work time), but some things may depend on your employment contract as to what is permitted with respect to using computers for personal use and if she has breached the contract. Sounds like you continue to let her keep doing it. If she's had a warning was it formal? If not, get advice and make it formal asap and not just having "a word with her".

 

[Newchodge]

How long has she worked for you?

Do you have clear policies on internet useage in work time?

Do you have clear policies about using racist (sexist etc) language while in the workplace?

Does her facebook page identify her employers?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

On one occasion she must have left her self logged in and we saw a comment she made as we had had a word with her about the constant internet usage and she had put something like 'they told me off for this and that, that's what you get for working for p*k*s and few other things...we were furious about this racist comment...


As the only way we could see this is because she left herself logged in, could we take disciplinary action over this? Obviously we don't want to employ anybody with this attitude.

Hi Bounce,


After referencing this employee previously being on Facebook constantly, you say “on one occasion…”, but was this a recent event, or something you want to dig up to use against her now?


If a recent event, as intimated by others ideally you have policies, procedures, even a screen-shot as evidence of the post. None of this is necessary to dismiss fairly, but it would help to back-up any decision.

Obviously we don't want to employ anybody with this attitude.

Most understandably, so if the event was recent you should take disciplinary action against them (regardless of what other conditions on policies, procedures, etc you have). Follow a fair disciplinary process, and take appropriate action based on this; you may be relying on witness evidence rather than documentary evidence that you can recreate, but if you have a reasonable belief that this was posted (at all, let alone on a work computer), you have reasonable grounds to take disciplinary action – potentially including dismissal.



Karl Limpert

 

[ganah-allan]

My take on this:
1. You must have a clear policy on using a computer (for personal use) during working hours.
2. If a person has any form of unwanted comments on his/her FB, that is his personal business. As long as the person is not saying something in behalf of the business, no such comment can be taken as directly harmful to the business.
3. Do you have a clear policy against racial discrimination? As to what extent is it applicable? From what I understand, such policy will only be enforced within the work premise (physically).

Therefore, if the person is using computer during working hours, provide a stern warning in a formal memo.
As for the racist comments, you can simply resolve it with the person privately saying that you do not tolerate racism at any instance and expect your employees to observe it.

My two cents worth.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Hi

I have an employee that used to be constantly on Facebook At work even though This wasn't allowed, we picked this up with her a number of times and still continued.

On one occasion she must have left her self logged in and we saw a comment she made as we had had a word with her about the constant internet usage and she had put something like 'they told me off for this and that, that's what you get for working for p*k*s and few other things...we were furious about this racist comment...

As the only way we could see this is because she left herself logged in, could we take disciplinary action over this? Obviously we don't want to employ anybody with this attitude.

Bounce Its good that you highlight this on here as its an issue that people would rather avoid than tackle
If you have clear evidence of this then you need to tackle with the view to getting rid of this person one way or the other .There is no possible way this person has a place in your company .
You may want to change company policy and employee contracts pretty quickly but the way I see it this person has actually broken the law and I would guess that that in itself would mean instant dismissal. Racism is against the law ! If this person took you to court what judge would support a claim if you can provide the evidence

 

[carents]

Prepare your defence first, she might turn around and say because her FB was logged in then somebody from work actually posted it impersonating as her. Just a thought.

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Without knowing what the comment was no one can say what should/can be done. The only workplace "offence" committed is using a PC for personally use. What they post on their private accounts is up to them, providing it doesn't reference the business in any way.

A lot of so called racism is subjective, there is always someone looking to be offended, and double standards applies. Example, as a observation someone may be described as "black as the ace of spades" or "white as a sheet". One can be claimed to be a racist slur, the other can't, why is that? So it may be possible the op is being over sensitive.

 

[LynetteGreen]

I would definitely take advice on this. As she is an employee I would try getting advice from an HR consultancy in the first instance to see if you can dismiss her for this, it would be a cheaper option than getting legal advice straight away.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Err that's what Karl is and he posted above

 

[TMGG]

A lot of so called racism is subjective, there is always someone looking to be offended, and double standards applies. Example, as a observation someone may be described as "black as the ace of spades" or "white as a sheet". One can be claimed to be a racist slur, the other can't, why is that? So it may be possible the op is being over sensitive.

Yes, the op is just being overly sensitive because she wrote that's what you get for working for p*k*s.

Did you write that with a straight face, Andrew?

 

[Ian J]

On another point, can you not do something to bar all access to social media sites on your systems?

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Yes, the op is just being overly sensitive because she wrote that's what you get for working for p*k*s.

Did you write that with a straight face, Andrew?

"something like" the op said. You know how things can get exaggerated to make a point/be offended. Just saying there are two sides to a story, and without all the facts who knows what was actually said.

 

[ethical PR]

Yes, the op is just being overly sensitive because she wrote that's what you get for working for p*k*s.

Did you write that with a straight face, Andrew?

Quadruple like.

 

[ethical PR]

"something like" the op said. You know how things can get exaggerated to make a point/be offended. Just saying there are two sides to a story, and without all the facts who knows what was actually said.

....no we don't Andrew .... Based on what the OP said and we only ever have the OPs version of events it's clearly a racist comment.

 

[Ian J]

"something like" the op said. You know how things can get exaggerated to make a point/be offended. Just saying there are two sides to a story, and without all the facts who knows what was actually said.

I think that you'll find that it was the first half of the sentence that was "something like" with the latter part about "that's what you get for working for p*k*s" being word for word.

You're not doing too well here since you joined are you?

 

[estwig]

If you've had her less than two years, just sack her.

No need to open yourself up to problems by giving the reason, just get rid.

If you're unsure call ACAS, they are surprisingly helpful and sympathetic towards employers.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

"something like" the op said. You know how things can get exaggerated to make a point/be offended. Just saying there are two sides to a story, and without all the facts who knows what was actually said.

I think everyone (well, everyone with the slightest bit of intelligence, so that does appear to rule some out) that the OP was not quoting their employee's Facebook post verbatim, but the substance of it was along the lines indicated, and importantly (otherwise there really would be no purpose to this thread) included a racist description of the employers.

We're never going to hear the other side of the story, but hopefully the OP will as part of a formal disciplinary process (that is if the employee has been employed for at least 2 years - otherwise, as others have said, a dismissal without formality would be better still).



Karl Limpert

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Obviously my bad for thinking the op could in the least bit be possible wrong. Didn't realise one side of a non-factual post is all it takes for everyone to call for the employee to be sacked.

I realise you are all self employed/employers, as such I thought you would also be well aware of the need to get the FACTS before passing judgement.

Never mind, I apologise for my error as you see it.

 

[estwig]

I realise you are all self employed/employers, as such I thought you would also be well aware of the need to get the FACTS before passing judgement.

I've just sharpened the pitch fork, if someone could bring the matches we'll crack on!!

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I realise you are all self employed/employers, as such I thought you would also be well aware of the need to get the FACTS before passing judgement.

Oops, I must admit I missed that minor detail that you need “FACTS” before passing judgement – or to put it more accurately in this instance, giving advice.


For my benefit, and all users on the forum, Andrew, are you able to advise when it became necessary for “FACTS” to be established before an employee can be dismissed? This would be really useful for me to know, as I’ve been working in this field for >25 years, so I’m hoping it’s a recent development and I haven’t been doing it wrong for a quarter of a century! That would be most embarrassing.


Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a most insightful post.



Karl Limpert

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Oops, I must admit I missed that minor detail that you need “FACTS” before passing judgement – or to put it more accurately in this instance, giving advice.


For my benefit, and all users on the forum, Andrew, are you able to advise when it became necessary for “FACTS” to be established before an employee can be dismissed? This would be really useful for me to know, as I’ve been working in this field for >25 years, so I’m hoping it’s a recent development and I haven’t been doing it wrong for a quarter of a century! That would be most embarrassing.


Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a most insightful post.



Karl Limpert

Well simply you can't dismiss someone on hearsay, which is what is happening on this thread.


You've simply taken the op at his word and "convicted" from there.

You should know better than most, if you are qualified if what you say you are, that FACTS are the essence in any court case.

I'm not arguing against racism, I'm just saying the op might be over sensitive and looking for a reason to sack a memeber of staff, it's not unheard off, Karl .

EDIT

Karl, I don't care who you are. BUT, FACTS, always have to be given before dismissal proceedings begin.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

For reference, I've always worked on the principal that an employer needs to hold a reasonable belief of an act, and have reasonable grounds to hold that belief, having investigated the matter reasonably (something based on a case called Burchell).

None of this requires the employer to establish "FACTS", just develop reasonable opinions. And I've found that even when I couldn't show as a "FACT" that a reasonably suspected act of misconduct took place, the employment tribunals have actually dismissed claims by my client's employees.

In this instance, it seems clear that the OP has clarified that their employee posted racist language about their employer on Facebook in work time, on a work computer. A verbatim record of the post was perhaps not maintained (we don't know this "FACT"), but the original post certainly implies clearly enough that this post on Facebook contained an offensive, racial description of the employers - or at least that the OP reasonably believes it did.

Barring formalities (if the employee has two years employment), I believe the OP has sufficient reasonable grounds to proceed to formal action that could result in dismissal.

But of course, my opinion is posted prior to any insightful comments Andrew might share...


EDIT: To clarify, crossed posts - a comment has been made from Andrew above, while I was finalising this post (I haven't read Andrew's post yet, so no idea about whether it has "FACTS" or is in insightful though).


Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Well simply you can't dismiss someone on hearsay, which is what is happening on this thread.



You've simply taken the op at his word and "convicted" from there.

Well, I could answer "yes, I have", or equally "that is worrying!" (I prefer my first answer though).

I was involved in a case of suspected theft from a hair salon; endorsed the idea of dismissal; and even rejected the appeal, without any “FACTS” just taking the client on their word that a certain product featured in a Facebook photo couldn’t have been obtained from a retailer.

Citizens Advice Bureau did help bring that case to a tribunal, and argued that we needed, but lacked, “FACTS” (or in their submissions, evidence that proved the point beyond reasonable doubt), but the tribunal apparently erred too, as it dismissed the claim, accepting the employer’s grounds of holding a reasonable belief.


And I gave advice on another case where there was hearsay evidence that an employee had taken cash – there was terrible accounting procedures in place, the cash wasn’t locked away at all, so accessible to all employees, and there was no way of knowing for sure who might have taken the money, but there was a witness statement that implied a certain employee could have been responsible. That case also went to an employment tribunal, but while establishing that I had nothing more than hearsay evidence to determine potential guilt, again an employment tribunal apparently erred, as they too dismissed the claim.


I must be more careful in future. Any advice Andrew, or will you simply accept that your posts on this thread lack “FACTS”?

The OP clearly has grounds to believe that offensive, racist, language was used to describe them. And done using equipment provided by them. Regardless of formal policies the OP may have, any reasonable person would accept that such abhorrent conduct could be grounds for dismissal, and that’s what’s been suggested here.


p.s. Welcome to the forums Andrew. Hope you're able to make a useful contribution one of these days...


Karl Limpert

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Well, I could answer "yes, I have", or equally "that is worrying!" (I prefer my first answer though).

I was involved in a case of suspected theft from a hair salon; endorsed the idea of dismissal; and even rejected the appeal, without any “FACTS” just taking the client on their word that a certain product featured in a Facebook photo couldn’t have been obtained from a retailer.

Citizens Advice Bureau did help bring that case to a tribunal, and argued that we needed, but lacked, “FACTS” (or in their submissions, evidence that proved the point beyond reasonable doubt), but the tribunal apparently erred too, as it dismissed the claim, accepting the employer’s grounds of holding a reasonable belief.


And I gave advice on another case where there was hearsay evidence that an employee had taken cash – there was terrible accounting procedures in place, the cash wasn’t locked away at all, so accessible to all employees, and there was no way of knowing for sure who might have taken the money, but there was a witness statement that implied a certain employee could have been responsible. That case also went to an employment tribunal, but while establishing that I had nothing more than hearsay evidence to determine potential guilt, again an employment tribunal apparently erred, as they too dismissed the claim.


I must be more careful in future. Any advice Andrew, or will you simply accept that your posts on this thread lack “FACTS”?

The OP clearly has grounds to believe that offensive, racist, language was used to describe them. And done using equipment provided by them. Regardless of formal policies the OP may have, any reasonable person would accept that such abhorrent conduct could be grounds for dismissal, and that’s what’s been suggested here.


p.s. Welcome to the forums Andrew. Hope you're able to make a useful contribution one of these days...


Karl Limpert

Thanks Karl, any examples you can give where there was a lack of facts and the claim was dismissed?

I was simply saying everyone is supporting the op without the evidence "something like" is a mile away from what may, or may not, be a racist comment. And as the op can't remember what was actually said, what would be his cause to proceed with dismissal proceedings, "I think you might have said xyz"?

 

[ethical PR]

Thanks Karl, any examples you can give where there was a lack of facts and the claim was dismissed?

I was simply saying everyone is supporting the op without the evidence "something like" is a mile away from what may, or may not, be a racist comment. And as the op can't remember what was actually said, what would be his cause to proceed with dismissal proceedings, "I think you might have said xyz"?

Oh dear Andrew. You are rather like a broken record. The OP stated 'we were furious about this racist comment'.

As someone who implies they believe in facts - can you point out where in his post the OP said "I can't remember what was said'.

Please don't make things up to support your spurious claims.

 

[Andrew Chambers]

she had put something like '

Doesn't that suggest the op can't remember what was said? If he can't remember what was said how can he reprimand her?

 

[ethical PR]

Doesn't that suggest the op can't remember what was said? If he can't remember what was said how can he reprimand her?

No it doesn't...it implies he wasn't quoting verbatim in his post, but providing a summary.

You still haven't answered my main question - as someone who keeps going on about the importance of facts - can you point out where in his post the OP said "I can't remember what was said'.

 

[Andrew Chambers]

No it doesn't...it implies he wasn't quoting verbatim in his post, but providing a summary.

You still haven't answered my main question - as someone who keeps going on about the importance of facts - can you point out where in his post the OP said "I can't remember what was said'.

Just did love, just did.

You take it he was quoting verbatim, I take it he can't actually remember what was said. Until the op confirms which it was neither of us can claim to be right. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, once the facts (pesky little details aren't they) are given.

 

[beasty]

I use COLDTURKEY

You can block programmes, just use this to block FB during working hours, makes life a lot easier

 

[Newchodge]

Given that the OP has not been back to answer any of the constructive questions put, the whole thing seems academic. Unless of course they have been frightened away by the ridiculous spats going on here.

 

[Newchodge]

Incidentally, I read the 'something like' to apply to 'this and that' as the OP did not quote what she claimed to have been told off about.

 

[beasty]

Ah,

I often just skip to the end of threads to reply to the original question if i have a useful answer

 

[japancool]

This thread stopped being about the OP a little while ago.