Blasphemy is now a sackable offence

eddie wrote:Oh, the stupidly, ridiculous world of the PC offended.
I wish it would stop before those morons ruin the fucking world with their woe-is-me and kowtowing to the PC fuckwits.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Where is the "bureaucratic excuse" being claimed by one of those complainants  ?

Asda is a company,  not a government department..

When companies lay out rules and conditions for employment, then the worker signs a contract, that company has every right to sack offending employees when they breach those conditions.

"Tough titties" for both that idiot former Asda employee, and those misguided fools trying to turn his dismissal into a free speech cause..

phil wrote:Maybe you can show me what rule was broken?

Employer Focused HR wrote:Bringing the Employer into Disrepute

Employees can at times be charged with being a representative of their employer even when they are not at work.

Employers are mostly concerned with what their employees do while they are at work but occasionally the employee’s behaviour on their own time can have a detrimental effect on the employer. It’s important for employers to take action in this situation – as ex England Manager, Sam Allardyce, discovered in 2016.

Bringing the employer into disrepute

When employees behave in a particular way in their private lives, those activities may be considered inappropriate because of the nature of their employment. It may be the case that the actions could become associated with the employer and have a negative impact on the business; undermine the public values of the employer or cause embarrassment to the employer: in other words, bring the employer into disrepute.

What can an employer do about it?

Employees can be disciplined and dismissed for bringing their employer into disrepute. Ideally, in the employee’s contractual documentation there will be a clause reserving the right for the employer to take action in relation to behaviour undertaken outside of work. However, even where [written documentation] isn’t the case, employers may be able to rely on a breach of mutual trust and confidence to initiate disciplinary proceedings. A written contract does not need to contain a reference to this because it is an implied term in the employer/employee relationship.
https://www.hr-24.co.uk/articles/bringing-the-employer-into-disrepute/

Original Quill wrote:

Employer Focused HR wrote:Bringing the Employer into Disrepute

Employees can at times be charged with being a representative of their employer even when they are not at work.

Employers are mostly concerned with what their employees do while they are at work but occasionally the employee’s behaviour on their own time can have a detrimental effect on the employer. It’s important for employers to take action in this situation – as ex England Manager, Sam Allardyce, discovered in 2016.

Bringing the employer into disrepute

When employees behave in a particular way in their private lives, those activities may be considered inappropriate because of the nature of their employment. It may be the case that the actions could become associated with the employer and have a negative impact on the business; undermine the public values of the employer or cause embarrassment to the employer: in other words, bring the employer into disrepute.

What can an employer do about it?

Employees can be disciplined and dismissed for bringing their employer into disrepute. Ideally, in the employee’s contractual documentation there will be a clause reserving the right for the employer to take action in relation to behaviour undertaken outside of work. However, even where this isn’t the case, employers may be able to rely on a breach of mutual trust and confidence to initiate disciplinary proceedings. A written contract does not need to contain a reference to this because it is an implied term in the employer/employee relationship.

phil wrote:And how is promoting a video clip, that the store sells a video of themselves bringing the company in to disrepute?

If the materal is deemed inappropiate, then why is Asda selling this product?

In other words, they went off the offense that someone took, who watched the video.

He should take them to tribunal and would clearly win, Asda have no case

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:And how is promoting a video clip, that the store sells a video of themselves bringing the company in to disrepute?

If the materal is deemed inappropiate, then why is Asda selling this product?

In other words, they went off the offense that someone took, who watched the video.

He should take them to tribunal and would clearly win, Asda have no case

That would be a jury question.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That would be a jury question.

Wrong, and shows you have no clue about employment tribunals in the uk

They do not have a jury

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wrong, and shows you have no clue about employment tribunals in the uk

They do not have a jury

True, I don't practice in the UK.  But I recognize it is a factual question rather than a legal one.  Factual questions are traditionally for a jury to determine.  If it is heard by a tribunal, their rules will have provisions for determining factual questions.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And how is promoting a video clip, that the store sells a video of themselves bringing the company in to disrepute?

If the materal is deemed inappropiate, then why is Asda selling this product?

In other words, they went off the offense that someone took, who watched the video.

He should take them to tribunal and would clearly win, Asda have no case

gelico wrote:

so sorry, i forgot.  

Offence taken only matters when it's Islam that's been offended

my bad

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, I don't practice in the UK.  But I recognize it is a factual question rather than a legal one.  Factual questions are traditionally for a jury to determine.  If it is heard by a tribunal, their rules will have provisions for determining factual questions.

Like I said, it would be a difficult case. Mainly as he agreed it was offensive, when he never should have. Though Asda selling the product would over rule this. As they would be in conflict over their own position as deeming the clip offensive, if thy actually sold the video

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, I don't practice in the UK.  But I recognize it is a factual question rather than a legal one.  Factual questions are traditionally for a jury to determine.  If it is heard by a tribunal, their rules will have provisions for determining factual questions.

Like I said, it would be a difficult case. Mainly as he agreed it was offensive, when he never should have. Though Asda selling the product would over rule this. As they would be in conflict over their own position as deeming the clip offensive, if thy actually sold the video

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm personally sick of corporations acting as though they have jurisdiction over every aspect of their employees' lives. I hope he fights this tooth and nail.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Like I said, it would be a difficult case. Mainly as he agreed it was offensive, when he never should have. Though Asda selling the product would over rule this. As they would be in conflict over their own position as deeming the clip offensive, if thy actually sold the video

Nothing overrules anything.  There are no favors in factual questions.  It's just what the trier-of-fact comes up with.  S/he uses a balancing test, rather than anything categorical.

This is where reasonableness comes in...whether the conduct is a breech of the 'no disrepute' provision of an employment agreement is subject only to a reasonable interpretation.

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:


And how is promoting a video clip, that the store sells a video of themselves bringing the company in to disrepute?

If the materal is deemed inappropiate, then why is Asda selling this product?

In other words, they went off the offense that someone took, who watched the video.

He should take them to tribunal and would clearly win, Asda have no case

I'm agreeing with everything you say on this one didge

What he should have done when hauled into the office is just say


''whaaaat??  you think I have brought ASDA into disrepute through advertising your own products???  How does that work?  I was actually going to ask management if there were any bonus scheme available to employees to earn points for all the products we advertise for you on your behalf via facebook.  It could give you loads more business and now,,,,and now you want to sack me???  Have you lost your minds?'''

and then storm out in a very self righteous manner and go straight to solicitors.

ASDA is now off my list for being a bunch of fuckwits (not that i shop there anyway)  

but it's scary the way things are moving don't you think?

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm personally sick of corporations acting as though they have jurisdiction over every aspect of their employees' lives. I hope he fights this tooth and nail.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Asda apparently have a "social media policy". If that policy is clear and spelt out to employees from the start, it's part of their contract and they can be sacked for not adhering to it. If it's not clear, I think he'd win at a tribunal, especially as the video is sold by Asda.

Part of the problem is that listed Asda as his employer on Facebook.

I wish the media would stop calling him a disabled grandad. It's really not relevant, and he's not too disabled to work anyway.

The video is clearly meant to be offensive to some people - that's Billy Connelly for you. Also, he shouts too much.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nothing overrules anything.  There are no favors in factual questions.  It's just what the trier-of-fact comes up with.  S/he uses a balancing test, rather than anything categorical.

This is where reasonableness comes in...whether the conduct is a breech of the 'no disrepute' provision of an employment agreement is subject only to a reasonable interpretation.

In this case it would. As Asda can hardly apply a ruling over something that they have not deemed offensive themselves by selling said product.  In other words the company would be in conflict over its own position with this product. They would also have to show they have apply this rulling on any complaint from employees throughout their branches. If this is not the case. Then Asda stands to lose big

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

In this case it would. As Asda can hardly apply a ruling over something that they have not deemed offensive themselves by selling said product.  In other words the company would be in conflict over its own position with this product. They would also have to show they have apply this rulling on any complaint from employees throughout their branches. If this is not the case. Then Asda stands to lose big

It's a good jury argument.  Gd. luck.

Truth be told, Asda can do what they want.  Employment is an at-will contract.  They don't care about being in conflict until and unless some tribunal or court tells them they have to.

Then, there's insurance to indemnify companies in employment causes-of-action.  If it's a group pool (of insureds), they'll never feel it.

phil wrote:That was simple a means, in order for them to justify sacking him.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:That was simple a means, in order for them to justify sacking him.

Why did the want to sack him, if it wasn't for the comment on social media?  Maybe there's more to this story.

phil wrote:To be honest he would need a dplying the policy universally. As well as the fact they are selling a product, that they deem has the offensive clip. It would go against them.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:To be honest he would need a dplying the policy universally. As well as the fact they are selling a product, that they deem has the offensive clip. It would go against them.

Don't get me wrong, you are doing a good job, making good closing arguments given the facts.  I think it's a 50-50 proposition, since he also admitted/apologized for the wrongdoing.

You might argue in rebuttal, that an employer is always in a place to force admissions/apologies like that, since they are his superiors.  It has the look of that sort of obsequiousness.

I understand that in the UK people can retain counsel on a contingency basis.  Good...because Asda will try to exhaust him on costs, appeals, experts, etc.