Disciplinary over Tweets - I need a hand hold

[BelgianFudge]

Does anyone have any experience of facing disciplinary over getting into a twitter spat? Nothing to do with the employer, but someone has sent screenshots to them and disciplinary action has been initiated.

Sorry for scant detail but I'm understandably worried about revealing much.

@BelgianFudge

Saying this gently as you're obviously stressed, but he's giving you his version. If an employer warned him about FB then I'm sure colleagues know about that and someone has keenly pointed out the Twitter outpourings.

But I have read all the evidence they have presented against him. Including his employers statement that the FB issue was considered resolved.

A colleague may well have pointed out his Twitter behaviour. But his boss statement said he has spoken to his colleagues and none of them were bothered

His colleagues may say one thing and not another - a few people I know through work wouldn't want to back someone one way or the other for fear of being targeted themselves by their boss.

I'm still concerned that either during work time/outside work time, your DH's views on Brexit seem so extreme and have been vocalised by him and they seem to have caused him inner turmoil and to get into online fights with randoms or people he doesn't know well on the internet. Can't your DH see, especially now he's receiving MH treatment that these fights etc aren't a professional way to behave?

Don't most employers have policies that making counter-claims during a disciplinary process will not be allowed to derail matters and will be investigated independently / after your own disciplinary has concluded?

If they're saying gross misconduct for bringing the business into disrepute it doesn't matter whether individuals have complained.

Also, informal warnings usually come with a lifespan so if there is another incident within 6 or 12 or however many months they go up a stage in disciplinary process. The policy should set this out. So matters were "closed" in the sense of no further action at the time, but not necessarily "closed" forever depending on subsequent conduct.

Unless the latest incident is gross misconduct in which case they can move directly to dismissal.

Does he really think he could continue working there after this anyway? What is he hoping to achieve? Especially if it is as toxic as you say.

@BelgianFudge

Ok, that's fine and good that he doesn't bring his views to work and keeps his head down when the subject is discussed.

It's also good that his boss says that your DH has not voiced his opinions at work.

But he has voiced these opinions, which are controversial, outside work, has been spoken to about them once and I believe you said re Facebook too. OK, someone has found him and reported him about this which is mean and shouldn't happen but your DH has lost control in speaking to someone about this and should really know better and should be backing off completely and saying nothing online.

I completely agree - he knows it was wrong and deeply beneath him. He is mortified

Your DH, might, just might, if he were to write or speak to someone in HR how mortified he is etc.

I've got an idea, does he have a reference from a past boss e.g. character? That might help him.

He might well have to work for a period (can't think of the work term for this) and have his social media etc monitored by his work and he'd have to accept that I'm afraid this, going forward indefinitely.

It sounds as though someone he works with or several people have made complaints? Because I can’t see why they would have screenshots from the old account it this only just came to their attention.

That said, there are sites which archive tweets. I have a deleted account from many years ago and searching my username still brings those up sometimes. Maybe they’ve pulled them off something like that?

@WitchesBritchesPumpkinPants

What a big fat fuss about nothing.

Calling someone an idiot/twat & telling them to shut up?

If that's the extent of it, I've no idea why he's in trouble.

Yes, I agree and people saying you shouldn't be political on social media - I think that's a terrible infringement on our civil rights. Yes, there are certain jobs where you cannot be political, but that should not be widespread. In a democracy, you should be able to voice your opinions, unless you're in a specifically politically restricted job.

He is going to ask his Union rep for advice on that. I think a deep heartfelt apology is worthwhile. He also apologised during his initial interview of course.

Yes he needs to keep working there. The culture there is toxic but he really ought to deal with it in the correct manner and report incidents when they arise. Unfortunately though he doesn't want to be seen as a troublemaker

"especially now he's receiving MH treatment that these fights etc aren't a professional way to behave?"

If it's in his free time, he doesn't have to behave professionally, does he? He only has to not bring his company into disrepute.

"One was a Twitter debate which got nasty over a football incident- the third party did simmilar to whats happened to your dh and googled the name and found the linked in profile then contacted us about this with screenshots. That individual was sacked. They were in a senior role and in a department and the organisation had to issue a formal apology through its own social media platforms as the complainant had gone to the trouble to share and tag the organisation into the screenshots for all to see...."

I think the difference here is that the person was in a senior role. Senior people are seen more clearly as representatives of their companies.
I wouldn't find this fair if it happened to me at all. His work was not named on Twitter, the complainant had to go to LinkedIn to find it. It makes me think I should delete my LinkedIn because I'll be damned if I'm going to stop airing opinions on social media.

"If he is in any type of work disciplinary or grievance it is very likely that work need to tell him the substance of the complaint so he can prepare for the hearing/his defence."

I was called to a disciplinary without even being told it was a disciplinary, also told another client had complained against me, but never presented with that evidence. Employers don't always follow the rules.
I complained and they asked me not to force them to have an investigation as that would have required paying an external person...

@Misandrylovescompany

Oh yes and another fact which is probably relevant: he works on a government contract!

So do thousands of people. You can't say that anyone working on a government contract can't slag off the PM. Fair enough if you're a senior civil servant and politically restricted, but not anybody involved in a government contract.

"But OP says he had people from his company following him. So he's made no effort at all to separate his social media from his company. That's bound to run into trouble."

I don't think you can control who follows you on Twitter. It's not like Facebook friends.

"your DH has been incredibly naive and stupid posting on Twitter not once but twice."

What? Most people post on Twitter hundreds of times.

He's not a civil servant, he works for a private company.

Ironically one of the tweets they've presented as evidence against him is a retweet he made of that famous tweet that someone in the civil service made against the government.

The problem is that if he routinely gets into arguments on Twitter and makes abusive comments towards others or about others then it is obviously not a one off and he is only sorry because he is now in trouble. His behaviour suggests he thinks it is an acceptable thing to do. Would his employers want their customers to know they employ someone who behaves like this? Only you know exactly what he has said but if the answer is that they think it could bring them into disrepute then they may take a hard line approach.

Yes I think it does bring them into disrepute- he doesn't deny that his posts have been entirely inappropriate.

Where he's querying it is whether it should bring his employer into disrepute if he doesn't state that he works for them, and makes no link directly to them. He states his views are his own. So the question is how does that then affect his employer?

Just to reiterate though - I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong. He clearly has

Ironically one of the tweets they've presented as evidence against him is a retweet he made of that famous tweet that someone in the civil service made against the government

The arrogant and offensive one? That's ridiculous if so

His behaviour suggests he thinks it is an acceptable thing to do

He did, yes. We argued repeatedly about it and he couldn't see why he shouldn't voice his opinion. He's had a cold hard shock of reality now and sees clearly why he can never do it again.

If I'm completely honest I wouldn't fully trust him not to get carried away and start ranting again in the future if he keeps his Twitter account. I think the safest thing for him is to swear off social media for good.

The arrogant and offensive one? That's ridiculous if so

Yes that one. I have it on a tea towel (and I am a civil servant!!)

"Would his employers want their customers to know they employ someone who behaves like this?"

But he does it in his private life, not connected to work. The link to work is only a very weak one i.e. he tagged them once. I tag all sorts of companies, doesn't mean I bring them into disrepute if I have an argument. I think this is totally ridiculous.

Wishing you and DH all the best. Is there a freedom of speech element that is protected by law? I mean everyone is allowed to have political views and express these in their private time in a social context.

It seems like the company is trying to curtail his free speech. Quite concerning

Snap Gwen. I think he doesn’t need to say he is sorry. For what? For having strong views and expressing them in a colourful way in his private time, within a private domain?

But he does it in his private life, not connected to work. The link to work is only a very weak one i.e. he tagged them once. I tag all sorts of companies, doesn't mean I bring them into disrepute if I have an argument. I think this is totally ridiculous.

Yes it is never connected to work. He never mentions his work, and his profile doesn't say who he works for or anything like that. But it does describe his profession e.g. 'florist' (he isnt a florist but you get my drift) so when you search his name + 'florist' then you can find external websites which link him to his employer in the past.

The way the 'complaint' came to his employer's attention was that he got into an argument with that random person, and they sent a screenshot to all the contacts tagged on a previous tweet on DH's thread. One of them just happened to be his employer, but the complainant didn't know which one. We even have a screenshot of the complainant subsequently saying he doesn't know who DH works for.

Oh gosh, I would clearly ask for specifics on the issue. Ie in what way have they been impacted by his SM post.

If they say harassment, then ask who was specifically harassed and in what way and what complaint did they make?

Ask for specifics. Not about your husband’s posts, but of the co sequences that they are claiming that arose that give rise to misconduct,

Otherwise they are in murky waters of curtailing free speech and political discussions. We are not North Korea and employers have very limited legal rights over employee private activities, and rightly so

"I find it very sad that a grown man enjoys arguing on twitter so much"

says someone on Mumsnet!!!!!!

Oh gosh, I would clearly ask for specifics on the issue. Ie in what way have they been impacted by his SM post.

If they say harassment, then ask who was specifically harassed and in what way and what complaint did they make?

They've already said that his colleagues 'may feel harrassed' if they see his posts which disagree with their own views. His boss was asked how his colleagues felt, and he said none of them were too bothered and the one that was just chose to unfollow him on Twitter. i.e. they chose not to look. They would have to actively seek out his tweets and read them to feel 'harrassed'.

That is not harrassment.