Manx Radio

[Gladys]

The immediate distinction of that case with the MR matter  is the CC had found that there was no racism.  Whereas in the Game case, the employer decided whether or not the tweets were offensive and found they were. 

In light of the decision of the CC would dismissal by MR for the matter be in the "range of a reasonable response"? 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

The immediate distinction of that case with the MR matter  is the CC had found that there was no racism.  Whereas in the Game case, the employer decided whether or not the tweets were offensive and found they were. 

In light of the decision of the CC would dismissal by MR for the matter be in the "range of a reasonable response"? 

MR can certainly reasonably decide whether the comments are ones they want to come from a programme under their banner or not. Irrespective of any outside regulatory body's rulings.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

MR can certainly reasonably decide whether the comments are ones they want to come from a programme under their banner or not. Irrespective of any outside regulatory body's rulings.

So they change the programme. 

[HeliX]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So they change the programme. 

Sure, if they like. I strongly suspect they'd also be within their rights to remove the presenter.

Again, I'm not suggesting I think that they should. But it's hard to argue that they're unable to.

[manxman1980]

10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The immediate distinction of that case with the MR matter  is the CC had found that there was no racism.  Whereas in the Game case, the employer decided whether or not the tweets were offensive and found they were. 

In light of the decision of the CC would dismissal by MR for the matter be in the "range of a reasonable response"? 

The CC have only considered whether the broadcast broke their rules.

It will be for MR to review the situation along with the specifics of Stu contractual relationship with them when it comes to what happens next.

The case I posted was more in response to the guy and his girlfriend who have reportedly been dismissed from their jobs for the banner flown over the Etihad (plus the myriad of racist posts they have allegedly made on social media).

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The CC have only considered whether the broadcast broke their rules.

It will be for MR to review the situation along with the specifics of Stu contractual relationship with them when it comes to what happens next.

The case I posted was more in response to the guy and his girlfriend who have reportedly been dismissed from their jobs for the banner flown over the Etihad (plus the myriad of racist posts they have allegedly made on social media).

Gotcha. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

42 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/employment/can-an-employees-offensive-use-of-twitter-justify-dismissal/

 

Each case will be decided on its own facts but there is one case that proves what I have been saying.

That bears no resemblance to what I responded to in relation to an owner and employee not getting on.

In the case you quoted his mistake was to connect himself to 65 of his stores.  Had he not had any links by following Game stores and having Game stores follow him then the outcome is different.  Quite why you would have a personal Twitter account where you connect in any way to your employer is insane.

[Neil Down]

46 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/employment/can-an-employees-offensive-use-of-twitter-justify-dismissal/

 

Each case will be decided on its own facts but there is one case that proves what I have been saying.

Didn't read the whole piece but as they didn't do anything offensive...

[woolley]

55 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/employment/can-an-employees-offensive-use-of-twitter-justify-dismissal/

 

Each case will be decided on its own facts but there is one case that proves what I have been saying.

It would be a strange argument to say you couldn't get along if you got along fine beforehand. I wouldn't want to go forward with a case like that. 

[Shake me up Judy]

It would be stupid of Manx Radio to do anything other than reinstate Stu after this process. That's what it's for. He's been suspended, investigated, and now cleared. He should get his job back on Monday, giving a few days cooling off now that they have the report. That would be the sensible course of action. If he doesn't, then whatever his contract with the station, I would think he has some grounds for legal recourse. Let's hope it doesn't have to go down that route. 

[hissingsid]

I am so glad this is the outcome, manipulation is a disgusting matter and this is how I perceive it , a set up for a very doubtful cause I do not think they would have got 734 people and 4 dogs marching under the BLM Banner if they understood what this insidious association stood for and it’s political aims.   Although most of them were dozy students and they love a march as well as it is not too early in the morning  

[manxman1980]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

It would be a strange argument to say you couldn't get along if you got along fine beforehand. I wouldn't want to go forward with a case like that. 

Not that strange.  Place yourself in the position of a business owner.  You have an employee who works well, you have a professional relationship with them and no particular cause for concern.

One day you turn on TV or open the paper to find that they have done something in their personal life that flies in the face of your values and the public in general (perhaps ripping down a statue or spraying it with graffiti or making vile or abhorrent comments on a controversial subject) and that has caused a significant public reaction.   Not only that but they have posted these thoughts on a public social media platform where they have also stated they work for your business.

The media then start to investigate and your business gets named as being this person's employer.  You have the media  calling you for your view on the subject.

Not only that but some of your clients call you and say that they will no longer work with that individual. 

How tolerant are you going to be?  Would you maybe not think that the mutual trust and confidence has been destroyed? 

Now I have not named a specific event because what you find morally acceptable and what I find morally acceptable are different.  That is one of the reasons we talk about a band of reasonable responses when considering whether a dismissal is fair or not.

[woolley]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

Not that strange.  Place yourself in the position of a business owner.  You have an employee who works well, you have a professional relationship with them and no particular cause for concern.

One day you turn on TV or open the paper to find that they have done something in their personal life that flies in the face of your values and the public in general (perhaps ripping down a statue or spraying it with graffiti or making vile or abhorrent comments on a controversial subject) and that has caused a significant public reaction.   Not only that but they have posted these thoughts on a public social media platform where they have also stated they work for your business.

The media then start to investigate and your business gets named as being this person's employer.  You have the media  calling you for your view on the subject.

Not only that but some of your clients call you and say that they will no longer work with that individual. 

How tolerant are you going to be?  Would you maybe not think that the mutual trust and confidence has been destroyed? 

Now I have not named a specific event because what you find morally acceptable and what I find morally acceptable are different.  That is one of the reasons we talk about a band of reasonable responses when considering whether a dismissal is fair or not.

I understand what you are saying, and I have been in a similar situation with an employee, although it was more a direct clash between the employee and customer rather than the employee having done something outside of work. My remedy in that case was to separate the employee from that customer.

If it was outside of work and no law had been broken, then I would consider it nothing to do with me or the customer, and that it would be unreasonable for a customer to withdraw business for something over which I had no control. In effect, he would be trying to coerce me to fire someone in line with his own personal views under duress. If he did this then I would consider the customer to be an arse. I do accept of course that a customer is not always going to take a reasonable view, and many of them are perfectly capable of being an arse. Then you have to take a commercial view over what you are prepared to accept from a customer. The customer is usually always right, but one of the joys of running my own businesses for the past 30plus years is that very occasionally I have exercised the right to tell an unreasonable customer to go to hell. It doesn't half shock them.

Going full circle, I still think you are on a sticky wicket rocking up to a tribunal and giving the reason that you can't get along when you got along perfectly well previously. I would want something stronger than that.

[manxman1980]

@woolley of course if it is just your customer that is causing the issue and the can separate the two of them then that is reasonable.  If you cannot move the employee then you can dismiss them.  I have done it myself and whilst the ex-employee went to ACAS my response was simple, no settlement agreement and we will see you at the Employment Tribunal.  The matter never went any further.

Normally actions by an employee outside the course of their normal employment are, as you suggest, not the business of the employer customer.  In the case I gave earlier and that of the two people from Burnley it has ended up associated with their employment through the public connection with their employer on social media.

Now the owners of the businesses could shrug their shoulders and take the point of view you have.  Or they could feel that the reputation of their business has been damaged and decide that it is to such an extent that they no longer have trust and confidence in that employee. 

Again, it why we talk about a 'band of reasonable responses' and each case being decided on it's own facts.

 

 

[woolley]

47 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

@woolley of course if it is just your customer that is causing the issue and the can separate the two of them then that is reasonable.  If you cannot move the employee then you can dismiss them.  I have done it myself and whilst the ex-employee went to ACAS my response was simple, no settlement agreement and we will see you at the Employment Tribunal.  The matter never went any further.

Normally actions by an employee outside the course of their normal employment are, as you suggest, not the business of the employer customer.  In the case I gave earlier and that of the two people from Burnley it has ended up associated with their employment through the public connection with their employer on social media.

Now the owners of the businesses could shrug their shoulders and take the point of view you have.  Or they could feel that the reputation of their business has been damaged and decide that it is to such an extent that they no longer have trust and confidence in that employee. 

Again, it why we talk about a 'band of reasonable responses' and each case being decided on it's own facts.

 

 

I certainly see the points you are making and I agree they are valid. It's a very difficult area. Interpretation and judgment. Give and take. If push comes to shove I accept that there are circumstances in which you would have to look to the interests of the business, hold your nose and side with the customer. You are not going to throw away a million pound account because some oik cannot keep his silly views to himself no matter how entitled he is to hold them. You are absolutely correct.