Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

[BeeSourianteAgain]

M&S have responded to people's enquiries, here's one:

https://bsky.app/profile/dpdormouse.bsky.social/post/3lvuzitrplc2f

As expected the staff member was just doing their job, something that happens thousands of times a day in shops all over the country.

As per normal, the trans panic was manufactured.

I fully expect all the GCs and media pundits who were pushing all sorts of hate to apologise, but as a person on their second LGBTQ moral panic I know very well how it goes.

Just as an aside - and not in relation to this case.

I am not familiar with UK employment law but is there a point at which an employer can dismiss an employee because of their need for constant affirmation and praise or excessive fragility?

Is there a point at which an employer can decide they are providing too much support in return for too little work?

I should have added ‘allegedly’ to my post with the Reddit screenshots.

There are a lot of weird details in that Reddit post though.

OUR COMMITMENT
M&S recognises that colleagues use social media as part of their daily lives. It is also a powerful tool to engage our customers and colleagues. Our Social Media Policy applies to all UK employees and sets out what is and isn’t acceptable content to post on social media as a representative of the M&S brand. As well as minimising reputational risk to M&S’ brand and business, this policy (and the expected behaviours contained within it) also aims to protect colleagues from possible disciplinary or legal action that could arise from irresponsible social media use.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

• To protect other colleagues and minimise any potential risk to M&S’ brand and reputation, it should always be in the forefront of our minds that we are representing M&S – even when we’re using a personal account or device outside of work hours
• Do not be offensive, discriminatory, bullying or threatening on social media, or make false, misleading or defamatory statements, encourage or display illegal activities
• Respect copyright. If it’s not yours, don’t use it
• Comply with company confidentiality obligations at all times
• Be vigilant and flag any possible social media policy breaches to your line manager

HOW TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE

• M&S uses technology to continually screen public social media platforms feeds for potential opportunities or risks to the business
• The Customer Sales and Service Centre (CSSC) continually monitors for social media posts where M&S has been tagged or mentioned (typically using either a hashtag (#) or @mention) and takes appropriate action
• Colleagues are personally liable for anything they post on social media. In the event of a breach of the Social Media Policy, M&S may launch an investigation that could result in disciplinary action, including possible dismissal from the company and/or legal action from third parties

Ha ha indeed.
It's spectacularly clear that M & S policies in relation to this man appear to be beiong breached in so many ways. The fact that he's boasting that men are allowed to train as bra fitters for girls and women, the fact that senior staff are allegedly on his side cheering and clapping, (as opposed to adopting a professional, customer centred approach. Plus posting on social media and doing yet more damage to the public perception of M & S as a brand that cares more about men with a fetish than they do about the safety of women and girls - their customers.

Yet another own goal and as always, revealing how transactivists are always determined to undermine boundaries and safeguarding of girls and women.

Sad times.

MEDIA AND INVESTOR RELATIONS
OUR COMMITMENT In order to protect M&S’ brand and corporate reputation, all media and investor activity needs to happen within a framework to ensure that any engagement is undertaken by colleagues and named agencies who fully understand our compliance and regulatory requirements as a publicly listed business and M&S’ approved corporate position on key topics. Specifically – all investor and media activity must adhere to The Market Abuse Regulation 2016 and the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulation on market disclosure. To support this, M&S Corporate Communications team operates a 24/7 press office function to manage external enquiries and support colleagues to manage media interest.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
Colleagues should not:

• Commit to or undertake any media engagement without approval from M&S External Communications
• Commit to or undertake any investor engagement without the approval of the Investor Relations Team
• Disclose any price sensitive/confidential information to external stakeholders

Colleagues should:

• Defer all media enquiries to the M&S External Communications team or named local agency
• Follow all processes to mitigate against accidental or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information
• Ensure that if they have access to confidential project information or price sensitive information, they are included on the insider list and/or restricted dealing list and complete the relevant training
• Ensure all confidential documents are password protected Ensure all partners & suppliers are aware of this policy

HOW TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE

• Management of the Insider List is undertaken by Corporate Governance
• Corporate Communications work with a third-party agency to run a daily media monitoring service, which highlights unauthorised colleague interaction with the media. Disciplinary action will be undertaken by HR

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
OUR COMMITMENT It is right that M&S engages with Governments and policy makers to inform them of our position on issues that affect our customers and colleagues. It is important that this engagement is undertaken within a framework that has been approved by the Corporate Communications and Legal teams.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

• Adhere to M&S’ principles of political engagement:
• Neutrality – M&S is politically neutral and we do not have party political affiliations
• Transparency – We are transparent in our political activity and do not attempt to improperly influence any government official or policy maker to gain a business advantage. At all times, every individual involved in political engagement should be comfortable that, if their behaviour or actions were made public, it would not cause concern.
• Customer focused – We do not engage in any political activity which may undermine our customer experience; colleagues and customers come first. We should ensure a customer centric message is part of all our interactions.

HOW TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE

• It is important any contact from Government is flagged to the Head of Public Affairs, who can support in responding. All meetings should be flagged with the Corporate Communications Director or Head of Public Affairs in advance. In the case of Scotland, the Head of Public Affairs will complete the Scottish lobbying register with all instances of ‘regulated lobbying’.

I note, not a WORD about safeguarding customers or reporting something that might indicate a staff member acting inappropriately in anyway that I can see.

Yes

This type of employee would be covered under the Equality Act 2010.

They would be classed as having a disability due to poor mental health. Which is different from their being in the process of gender reassignment and having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The laws recognises that the employees need to earn a living is a fundemental need. (No money no food or shelter etc)

So the EA2010 says that a business must make reasonable adjustments. There is no specifics as to what is "reasonable" as it takes account of all the circumstance.

So the employer has to look at their business the role(not the employee) the expected period of "illness" and the resources needed to keep the employee in "any" role or function.

They would carry out occupational health (OH) assessments and offer Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) etc where they try to keep the employee in the original role or even offer a new/adapted role eg go part-time and hire a second employee or spread tasks among other employees etc.

However the employer can reach as stage where it is just not reasonable as they are paying two people to do the same role as the first employee in not able to sucessfully carry out the tasks.

Its a complex area and normally a long process which has to be carefully documented by the employer but it is possible to "sack an ill employee for cause"

Tbf to M&S up untill 5 min ago the idea that they needed to tell male staff not to speak to 14 year old girls about their underwear was a very 70's/80'' look. I am sure some of the Carry On movies had how not to be a pervy at work as a theme.

However as a large player in one of the few industry to still employ children they should have some type of child safeguarding policy for managing corporate interactions with children. So the principles on dos and donts should be written up by "someone".

National newspapers go out to retailers on a ‘Sale or Return’ basis so that manager must’ve personally paid for all the ones their branch destroyed (or alternatively it’s just a fantasy from inside this shop assistants head).

www.abc.org.uk/reporting-standards/national-newspapers/retail-sales-sale-or-return

AnSolas, thanks for the clear explanation of the employment law

It is interesting that the fragility and need for affirmation might be classed as a mental health issue.

When I try to think it through in relation to trans I end up wondering if gender transition is a protected characteristic are the mental health issues that characterize some transitioners also protected?

Transitioning is protected but if, for example, you have to deal with dementia patients and suffer extreme mental anguish if they misgender you, is this behavior also protected as part of your transitioning?

the mother has said that a few things in the post indicate it’s possibly true but also some outright lies

https://x.com/doejane1971/status/1957700891923894390?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Even if he is the employee in question, the retelling of the story was never going to be simple and vague.

Never retell a story without an 'an everyone cheered' part.. And youve got to admit the vision of torn up daily mails across the food hall is a dramatic ending.

Here is a link to the full text on Reddit with comments

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1mtwx8t/ms_trans_employee/

the mother has said that a few things in the post indicate it’s possibly true but also some outright lies

The detail of him carrying a load of bras?

So he could have been holding bras when he asking her if he could help?

Yes it’s strongly implied by him that he was. He specifically mentions putting them away after he “thought nothing of it”.

Why is this employee talking about this at all on social media thus likely resulting it in all blowing up AGAIN for the company?

I would be hauling his backside in over it and thowing the social media policy at him.

I mean I suspect there will be media watching this subject thanks to the antics of some anyway.

Surely M&S or any other employer would be less than enthralled by an employee writing long social media posts about an incident at work which has attracted negative media attention.

In a comparable situation I don't think I'd be posting all the details on Reddit.

But remember, this employee feels very protected by their managers. There seems to be little understanding of professionalism and boundaries there at all.

I think that that team would be rather shocked if someone from M&S Corporate took them aside and pointed out the lack of professionalism and that actually this was out of line. I wonder if any negative feedback will be considered transphobic by the team and cause a great deal of employee disruption.

Role specific problems?
(Nursing has professional standards which in implementation harm prevention would somewhat modify the employers duty of care)

Mental fragility and need for affirmation are personal and subjective to the individual.

Employer has an obligation to protect from harraasment.

He is a man so what is reasonable in the context of men generally.

In this case the role is public facing with a multiple of persons who will actively discriminate under any of the protected characteristic and ones who will not.

So the reasonable test is can the employer stop the act.
Tedt 1 pre-vet the public and prevent?
Yes - obligation to act
No - can it be reasonable prevented in other ways
Idea A ; B ; C -Z
Yes - obligation to act
No - remove from role as Employer has taken all reasonable steps and can not prevent harm.

Then are there any specific gender reassignment issues created by anyone other than the employee?

Again
Yes -
Eg the Met Police 1999 had a male officer who was allowed become a "women officer" so different dress uniform and duties were expected one of which was managing female prisioners (strip search). The officer did not want to be involved but could be disiplined and not promoted due to the issue. So a third role was created "woman officer modified" where he could carry out normal police duties and not be involved with physical contact with women who lost the ability to control who touched her and the right to seek legal redress for the 'assault'.

No -
if the role cant be modified to prevent harm the next option is to redeploy into a new similar role or remove from the business.

It is always much safer for the "distress over the act" to be managed under disability. Otherwise the employer would have to get experts to say with a certainty that it was not a mental health condition that any man could have but rather only a man with the PC GR.

And at this stage the employer is focused not on a generic population but rather on one man with a specific health condition exposed to specific act that the employee deems 'harmful' acts to himself. So unlikely the experts will be helpful. Plus remembering its a reasonablness test to balance the need to have someone who can do individual tasks and the employee insisting he cant do the taaks/ role in its current form.

The outcome should be the same because its always asking if there is one more reasonable step which the employer can take to keep the employee in the role or even in any job which the employee could carry out with their limited ability.

The employer problem is to make sure they have actually taken the steps which are reasonable.

Or was ripping the headder off the papers (do shops still do that??) as proof of a return which is a theft by fraud as it forces a credit note from the supplier and a loss to the supplier and a loss to M&S for the sales value.

Should the jurnos check if that M&S looked for a unusual credit from the newspaper supplier on the day??

What if a customer wanted to read those newspapers?

Surely the customer wanting the Mail or Times merits them being available if M&S are politically impartial as their code of conduct requires them to be....

Do M&S sell newspapers? It's news to me if they do!

Aren't they available to customers in the cafe?