DH dismissed from work

[user14792792]

Last month DH was sacked from his job for gross misconduct.
I am really worried we live in a very small town where everyone knows each other. I heard from a friend today that everyone is talking about why he was sacked and coming up with different theories.
I don't know how he will find another job if everyone is talking about him and giving him a bad reputation.

Where do you live such that local gossip would prevent him finding future work? I live in a tiny village with a population of 125 but I don’t know where everybody works or know such information about everyone

@Aprilx I've lived in a village and I think people would know what someone does, and where they work if it's somewhere other locals work.

There are some nasty replies on this thread.

The OP's DH is accountable to his employer. Maybe also clients / customers / service users - but ultimately his employer.

NOT the gossips at the village pump.

So much justification of community gossip.

OP - tell your 'friend' that people need to wind their necks in and keep their imaginations and judgements to themselves. If it was something that most people would have sympathy with (phone checking / accident that damaged something but there but for the grace of god... etc) I would say something like "it is of course confidential, but unless you have never checked your phone at work / had a bit of an accident with work equipment or , god forbid, been caught GOSSIPING about your employer or clients or similar work situations maybe you should stop casting aspersions"

I hope that either your DH discovers that he has recourse to appeal etc given some of the advice on this thread, or learns and moves on from what happens and finds something new soon.

People just gossiping are beneath worrying about.

But too bad for you say what it was.

@Rosebel Blimey, well done him for taking them to court. Sounds like they had it in for him for some reason.

Do goats ha e expenses?

@timesaretight ?

Why are gossips being defiant?

I see what you meant now I only read the first post. It seems all he did was something that Gary Lineker did and everyone says he is great (well not everyone but many ...)

In fairness, it's not the same thing at all. Gary Lineker was criticising government policy, not his employers. Also, Gary Lineker isn't directly employed by the BBC (he's a contractor) and isn't a news reporter, he's not covered by the clauses that the BBC employees were bound by.

People Gary Lineker because he used his social media platform to bring light to a political issue that he felt was important. Not everyone will agree with him and that's fine - the point was about his freedom to use his voice, and he was ultimately vindicated.

By comparison, the OP's DH criticised his own employer on social media - a very different situation. I do think that sacking someone for criticising the company is very heavy-handed but quite a few employers have it written into their rules as gross misconduct.

I would absolutely be letting people know the reason he was sacked - and I might even put a social media post up about it (being extremely careful about how it's worded). I'm sure people will move on - it's silly rather than horrendous and there are plenty of people who have been similarly caught out.

Um, no. The two situations are not remotely comparable.

The OP's husband clearly posted something negative online about his employer. Most employers would have an issue with this, as it brings the company into disrepute.

Gary Lineker expressed his concerns, as a private citizen, about government policy and government rhetoric. The last time I checked, he is not employed by the Home Office.

It seems that your understanding of the Lineker row is very limited indeed.

Agreed! Sometimes, employers can assume that employees will 'simply move on' as Tribunal can be daunting, particularly as the employee often cannot afford legal representation and employers will. Also witnesses are often still employed by the company etc. This also highlights what others have said about the importance of being in a Union (though many roles will not have one)

How long had your husband worked for the firm OP? If he is within the time limits for a Tribunal, it might be worth checking whether he would potentially have any case. Depending on the area you are in you may be able to get free advice - Law Centres/ Free Representation Unit etc - yes you are in a village but if you can get into a city maybe you could get access? Whilst it is a big decision to go to tribunal, knowing where you may stand can help with negotiations etc

Most employers now only provide confirmation that they were an employee and dates of employment to avoid any question of defamation, inaccuracies etc. The question would you re-employ is often ignored for the same reasons. In fact, references are now being seen as of little use as they provide little insight into future performance so I wouldn't worry about this. The same goes for probation periods - they are starting to fall away too.
If the employee worked in a regulated profession and the GM was professionally connected, this would have to be revealed eg if in the medical profession and they had broken standards/professional code.
My advice would be ignore the gossip, do not discuss or defend, it will soon become old news if the gossip machine isn't being fed. And if possible seek employment that is not location specific and can be done remotely; you don't answer to your small minded community and it's absolutely nobody else's business so don't feel the need to explain!
People mess up in their jobs and get over it; learn from the experience and move on, life is too short. Good luck to you and your DH, you can definitely put this behind you.

Depends on the union, ours is shit.

She has. RTFFT