Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
28-02-20, 12:32PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 9114
  • Latest: Angela
Stats
  • Total Posts: 64927
  • Total Topics: 1156
  • Online Today: 194
  • Online Ever: 483
  • (25-02-20, 02:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: Hypothetical Question  (Read 63939 times)

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6774
  • Who dares, wins.
Hypothetical Question
« on: 20-05-05, 12:36AM »
Would be grateful for all your learned opinions. No wise cracks or jokes (they will be deleted), stick to the point please.


Hypothetical  ??? : if a person posts on here or on the public side a post that criticises the management and their way of doing things, and/or the way they have been treated by management.   Should they be subject to disciplinary action.

Also: In your opinion what const*tutes bringing the company into disrepute.

Nomad ( Webmaster )
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

dodger

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #1 on: 20-05-05, 12:51AM »
So long as any such post if factual and can be subtantiated then how can they disciplin you for telling the truth.

 You know they say the truth hurts well it don't hurt as much as a pallet droped on your head from E level   :P  

Prehaps managment should deal with things and keep the work force happy or atleast deal with any individual on that basis as an individual on the merrets of the case,unfortunately they don't the choise to tar everyone with the same brush >:(

 They never use there discrestion personly i don't think the SM allow the mm to use any discretion :(  if they did have the grevences would never get to the stage where a grivence had to go in

To bring the company into disrepute then i belive somthing liebalis makeing the company look bad in the public eye to be disreputable

If the mm have direputable practises then they should deal with them not anyone pointing out there errors

hairy

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #2 on: 20-05-05, 02:14AM »
In a democracy, I thought we had freedom of speech. Factual criticism should not be a problem. To name names on here could be on dodgy ground in a court of law; so probably best not to.

As for 'bringing the company into disrepute'; could be applied to any criticism of the company. But if said criticism was proved to be true, then an Industrial Tribunial would find in favour of the acccuser I would think.
Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 workers have the right not to be victimised for blowing the whistle on employer malpractice.

Bit of a legal minefield this one.

-----------------------
Doing nothing is very hard to do.....you never know when you've finished
(moderator)

bloodhound

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #3 on: 20-05-05, 08:17PM »
Observations and criticisms can be posted directly on a public site as long as the following criteria are adhered to:-
1) the individual or individuals are not directly named or are identifiable by a commonly used nickname
2) no contravention of the data protection act occurs(ie names addresses or personal information is disclosed)
3) the incidents or practices being reported are factual and no embellishments have been added for an element of drama
4) The article contains no libellous content(this is a tricky one and links directly to point 3)

These pointers are for 'public postings' like the ones we do here on VLH,because it is a site which any member of the general public can access-including the people who you are writing about.
A general rule of thumb is this; if you came across a public site and you found details about yourself on it-how would you feel and more importantly how would you react?
MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!!!!!
If a libellous posting is found and the target individual decides to act on it then it can lead to the hosting site being closed down!
So please guys and gals,when you are venting spleen on VLH try and remember that you could potentially close down the site for the benefit of a few seconds of anger!
Here endeth the lesson!

whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
Absolutem
Obsoletum

billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #4 on: 21-05-05, 02:55AM »
See Below ??? ??? [?][?] ;)
« Last Edit: 22-05-05, 06:43PM by billybong »

billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #5 on: 21-05-05, 03:24AM »

slap head

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #6 on: 25-05-05, 07:34PM »
In one of my previous employment contracts (not with Tesco's, I might add) it stated (in small print) that if woulds be deemed as gross miss-conduct to talk ill of the company.
« Last Edit: 25-05-05, 09:13PM by slap head »

billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #7 on: 25-05-05, 07:57PM »

slap head

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #8 on: 27-05-05, 09:12PM »
On another tangent,

How would you stand (legally) if you were to secretly recored a MM abusing you.
Let's say when we get called upstairs for A still-time infringement etc.

I ask this because a lot of us have the ability to do this with our own Mobil phones.

billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #9 on: 27-05-05, 10:23PM »
« Last Edit: 27-05-05, 10:40PM by billybong »

Grafter

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #10 on: 30-05-05, 02:03PM »
All of the above points are well made but on a note of caution, I would imagine Tesco's crack legal team are just biding thier time ( or am I just being paranoid ? ). All it take's, as has been mentioned already, is one slip or rant too many ...

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6774
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #11 on: 30-05-05, 03:10PM »
Thanks to all for your views on this subject so far. As this forum is members only ( I know anyone can join ) it is not shoved into the publics face so I believe a little more freedom of speech is permissable ( but not much ).

The public notice board is a another ball game, I believe it is needed to perhaps encourage people onto the site and into the forum. But I would ask all of you to read the posts that are on there and send me or a moderator a message or Email if you feel someone has stepped over the line. I and the moderators have to pass every post, but we are human and not legal eagles so we may miss something. Thanks for your help.

Nomad ( Webmaster )
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #12 on: 30-05-05, 06:00PM »
A tribunal, would I believe be in favour of freedom of speech. This  is as long as the details were true.
How can anyone be punished for telling the truth ?
Also they couold not punish anyone for trying to improve conditions for themsleves and their colleagues.
What headlines that would make. Bully boy tactics used by multi billion pound company, against anyone who complains about the way that they operate.

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #13 on: 01-06-05, 04:01AM »
If you go a union web sites you find that companies are mention a lot and so are the managers not by name, but by t*tle so the above should not be a problem, checkout www.unionreps.org.uk and you will see for yourself

slap head

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #14 on: 07-06-05, 09:11PM »
I think T****S would take a very dim view of anyone that put subjects into the public domain which would or could affect their profit margins.
This is why you'll only find aliases on this or any other forum. :(  :-\
quote:
Originally posted by Big un

A tribunal, would I believe be in favour of freedom of speech. This  is as long as the details were true.
How can anyone be punished for telling the truth ?
Also they couold not punish anyone for trying to improve conditions for themsleves and their colleagues.
What headlines that would make. Bully boy tactics used by multi billion pound company, against anyone who complains about the way that they operate.


billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #15 on: 08-06-05, 12:43AM »

Dack_to_Rath

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #16 on: 08-06-05, 07:24AM »
Hay as a result of the question someone got a final written warnng in a store I know

DACK TO RATH

Death to Tescos Pit tach

billybong

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #17 on: 08-06-05, 11:15AM »
« Last Edit: 08-06-05, 11:18AM by billybong »

kinloss1

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #18 on: 09-06-05, 01:34AM »
I would have to say that as we live in a democratic country that allows us freedom of speech, then i can`t see a court or tribunal that would find against the person making the statement, unless names were mentioned and the allegations/comments were untrue and proven such. Good question though.

bushido

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1524
  • Train hard, fight easy.
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #19 on: 09-06-05, 10:36PM »
to bring the co. into disrepute...

wouldnt they have to show that the "direputable" act had changed the publics perception....which means lower takings?

I remember one of my old union colleagues actually argued this point.
Someone was being disciplined for bringing the co. into disrepute. However, he (or she :)) showed the takings prior to and after the alleged incident. The takings for several weeks afterwards showed no detrimental affect and were in fact ahead of budget.
He (or she) won.
The co couldnt prove they had been detrimentally affected and therefore concluded it couldnt have been disreputable or something along those lines.


*************************************************
Those who scream loudest are the quietest when action is needed
bushido  
Those who scream loudest are the quietest when action is needed
 "Gentlemen, you cant fight in here, this is the war room!"

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #20 on: 12-06-05, 06:51AM »
Why does the truth always hurt then, if half the customers knew what really went on behind the scenes there would be no queues at the checkouts

bloodhound

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #21 on: 12-06-05, 05:38PM »
quote:
Originally posted by antaeus11

Why does the truth always hurt then, if half the customers knew what really went on behind the scenes there would be no queues at the checkouts



And unfortunately we'd all be out of a job! :(
Like it or loathe it, the best we can do is try and change the company-the public,bless there cotton socks,don't really give two hoots what the conditions are like for the workers-they just want cheap,available goods in the stores. ;)

whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
Absolutem
Obsoletum

carebear

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #22 on: 17-06-05, 09:23PM »
quote:
Originally posted by nomad

Would be grateful for all your learned opinions. No wise cracks or jokes (they will be deleted), stick to the point please.


Hypothetical  ??? : if a person posts on here or on the public side a post that criticises the management and their way of doing things, and/or the way they have been treated by management.   Should they be subject to disciplinary action.

Also: In your opinion what const*tutes bringing the company into disrepute.

Nomad ( Webmaster )

I have  taken a camra to work and taken pics with it and showed thouse pics to the gm and put them on to disk for him . He did`t seem botherd but the sm tould me that i was using theternig behaver and bringing the company to disrepute gross neg ect,ect untill i informed him that I was telling him and thats informing him not threternig him. I was al so tould that by telling the loaders on the shift that they must work as to there training i was insiteing them to riot and I could be saked for that

thedarkside

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #23 on: 17-06-05, 09:41PM »
If the training is as per the training departments safe system of work how can any fool in his right mind see that asking colleagues to carry out their duties as the were trained been seen as remotely like inciting to riot? I think that this person needs to review the following acts to find his relevant areas:

  1. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1998 Chapter 37  
  2. Criminal Justice Acts 2001 to 2005 inclusive

That should keep him occupied for a while >:D
« Last Edit: 17-06-05, 09:45PM by thedarkside »

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #24 on: 17-06-05, 10:15PM »
carebear in what capacity were you telling the loaders to work as trained ?

stand up ,sit down,stand up,sit down