We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
A Northern Ireland case which looked at the ever-growing number
of issues caused by social networking.
Mr Teggert posted offensive sexual comments about a female
colleague on Facebook. These provoked online comments from Mr
Teggert's Facebook friends, some of whom also worked at
Teletech. This was reported to Teletech and, after a disciplinary
hearing, Mr Teggert was dismissed for gross misconduct. The reasons
were that the Facebook post amounted to sexual harassment and
brought Teletech (named in the post) into disrepute.
Mr Teggert unsuccessfully appealed the decision and brought a
claim for unfair dismissal and for violation of his human rights.
He lost. Some of the key points of the tribunal's decision
are:
Mr Teggert's actions satisfied the definition of
harassment;
harassment can occur where comments are directed to
others;
the employer's decision to find Mr Teggert guilty of
bringing the company into disrepute was seriously flawed, but he
would have been dismissed on the harassment charge in any event,
and that dismissal would have been reasonable;
articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9
(freedom of thought, conscience or religion) and 10 (freedom of
expression) did not help Mr Teggert. He had abandoned his right to
make private comments when he posted them on Facebook. Belief
didn't extend to belief about another person's promiscuity.
Freedom of expression had to be exercised responsibly.
This decision isn't binding on UK employment tribunals, but
it's a useful indication of the way courts are thinking.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court and, most recently, Court of Appeal decisions in the "banker bonus" litigation stemming out of the Commerzbank/Dresdner merger in 2008 have received extensive media coverage.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick [2012] EWCA Civ 1399).
Following much debate, on 24 April 2013 the House of Lords finally gave its approval to employee shareholder status which will now take effect from Autumn 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
