Slashdot Mirror
UK Executive 'Forced Out of Job' For Posting CV Online
First time accepted submitter sweetpea86 writes "An executive who uploaded his CV to LinkedIn was forced to quit his job because he ticked a box stating he was interested in 'career opportunities'. John Flexman is demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation from his former employer, gas exploration firm BG Group, where he earned £68,000 pounds a year as a Graduate and Development Manager. He is thought to be the first person in the UK to bring a case for constructive dismissal. The case highlights a grey area around employees' use of social networks such as LinkedIn. According to Kate Hodgkiss, Partner at law firm DLA Piper, employers have every right to seek to protect confidential company information by restricting LinkedIn and other profiles, but cannot prevent employees from looking for a new job. The news echoes a report in December that a Californian Twitter user was being sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs. PhoneDog launched legal proceedings against Noah Kravitz, seeking damages of $2.50 a month per follower for eight months."
If employers can post openings for your position on job sites, you can certainly check a box indicating general interest in careers-at-large.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.
yet ticking the 'interested in career opportunities' box is a no-no? How would you job hunt if people don't think you're interested in exploring other opportunities?
I have a small network of friends and associates on LinkedIn, they know I am happy where I am at, but I always listen to new opportunities that's how I got where I am. Ususally I will pass on the info to someone else I know that's looking.
However if you never listen to opportunities, people never think of you as someone to talk to about them.
When the time comes that you need a job, your network has withered and you're stuck looking at official postings, half of which are already wired for a certain candidate but have to be announced for legal reasons.
This kind of discrimination always existed, the news is that company in question actually admitted it as a dismissal cause, instead of the usual 'performance' cause.
Could have been within the company too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Getting contacted by an executive at another company for a joint venture.
2. Getting a new degree.
3. Getting contacted by an investor.
This is as ridiculous as firing someone for racism because they put "enjoys participating Civil War reenactments" on their Facebook page.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/09/uk-borders-constructive-dismissal-lawyers
Quite a prominent one as well.
sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs.
Then the company is too stupid to survive.
This is happened over and over with celebrity chefs. Smart companies create a fictitious character, then promote that, not a real person.
If you have to use a real person, get a multi-year agreement that specifies what you get in return for royalities. Yes, you will still have to keep paying them after they leave, but you can continue to use their image/persona.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
It's similar to a resume. (I had to google the acronym to figure out what this Slashdot topic was about.)
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
For the BG executive, dismissal is without merit, and does not seem ultimately related to the checked box on "interested in career opportunities". Seemed more like some political pissing contest gone badly. For PhoneDog, if the guy got the followers from leveraging his position at the past company, which it seemed like he did, then he mixed business with personal. If that were the case, a business should be entitled to the proceeds generated from the intentional or unintentional use of their property for personal purposes.
Sounds more like low level management than an "executive".
To play devil's advocate, the employer could claim that the very fact that an important executive was looking to leave could give the impression to outsiders that something bad was going on in the company and that could result in a loss to their business. Perhaps his interest in leaving this company turned away some of the customers or investors or lowered other employees' morale.
Remember when Steve Jobs was doing nothing more than going on a medical leave, it adversely affected Apple's stock price. Of course the company is this case would have to PROVE that suffered or stood to suffer a loss.
I wonder if they'll go as far as trying to find out if he posted it while at work, and how much that might matter.
It was kind of a low thing to do to terminate someone for using linkedin to look for other jobs. If they could prove that he was doing it on company time, that is a entirely different thing but if he was at home or on his own time and resources it is low.
True, the damage such a signal could do to the firm would depend on both the individual's position and the degree of reliance others would feel they could put on it to assess conditions at the firm.
As it happens, as a long-time Linkedin user it's something like 80% of all people who have this box ticked. It starts out ticked by default, I believe. So the degree of reliance as an indicator should be very low.
no He is claiming constructive dismissal they didn't fire him he is claiming they forced him to resign (there is no cap for constructive dismissal as opposed to a bog standard unfair dismissal.
Employers must always assume that, any day, one of their employees will show up and announce their two-week notice. It's one of the risks of being in business and having employees at all.
On the flip side, they generally can fire their employees at will, too, so it's not entirely one-sided.
Except the BG Group's stock price has actually continued an upward trend since before Mr. Flexman was "forced to quit", and has actually risen by $100 / share in the past 5 days.
Yahoo Finance - BG Group
Seems as though they would have a hard time proving that Mr. Flexman leaving has negatively impacted them. Sure there are additional considerations, including the obvious Streisand effect that could have led to this change, but it is obvious that they did not see a mass exodus or a decrease on brand confidence with their investors.
Thirty four characters live here.
That would only have merit if there is any way they could prove that people that tick that box on twitter statistically are actually more interested in leaving their company than people that don't tick it. Also, even if they would be interested, would they actually leave? Until they come up with statistics that actually prove that sort of correlation, there is no way to prove that him ticking that box would in any form or way damage his employer.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Agreed - Unless the twitter account was under the name of the company. If it's under his personal name E.G "My name is bob, follow me on twitter as bob" shouldn't entitle a company to it.
In the case in question the guy was hired to do marketing stuff and the company name *was part* of the account. When the company name is "PhoneDog" and the twitter account is something like "PhoneDog_Bob" I think you can make an argument that the account was work related. Given the use of the company name in the account name I think in this case he should create a new personal account, announce it, and expect those only interested in him personally switch. Letting the company keep the old account.
I'll go you a step further. He may have done this via a company computer, thus violating the company's AUP.
I think it's stupid, too, but that's the devil's advocate position.
I8-D
I, like many people, treat the "you could get fired if your boss thinks you're looking for another job" as kind of axiomatic, but what's the employer motivation for this?
I'll exclude poor performance, where the employee basically comes in and does nothing but use the company PC to create resumes and cover letters, faxes them with the company fax machine and then goes home, his current job's work undone, mainly because that's being fired for poor performance, the cause of the poor performance is immaterial.
"Because I have to hire a new employee" -- OK, you just *fired* your current employee, you're going to hire someone else anyway, and with zero cooperation from the existing employee who is now job hunting AND doing it while enjoying unemployment benefits because "looking for a job" isn't termination for cause.
"I don't want them to take my secrets/customers" -- the good ones already have your secrets, customer lists, etc. Firing them now gives them moral justification to utilize these in their new job.
I'm lost on where it benefits the employer other than vague claims of weak performance (working well enough not to be reprimanded but not at peak output) or nearly unmeasurable claims of impacting morale.
About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.
First off, when an rank and file employee doesn't show up for work, investors don't care. When Founders, and Chief of-what-ever's don't show up for work, the rules change. Investors vote by shorting their stock. It causes the "wealth cream-skimmer types" to take notice; examples are Boards of Directors, and CEO's along with their attentive minions.
I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law. Given that Noah Kravitz has a fairly competent lawyer, PhoneDog will get to pay for this waste of the Courts time. This is just harassment of an ex-employee by a corporation that has to pay for some large egos that are clueless about increasing revenues.
In a company like BG on £68k/annum he's not an important executive. Having worked for them for several years (but not since 2002) I know from the pay/job title that he's upper middle management. Also when it comes to customers then BG isn't a typical corporation. They have a monopoly on the UK's gas/electric infrastructure although they do also work with other firms in projects for things like natural gas exploration. I'd be amazed if this isn't about managment cliques, he wasn't popular with one, they went digging for dirt, they found his profile, and they've tried to use that to shaft him. With any luck it's about to backfire quite spectacularly.
I don't think this guy was an executive. His title was "Graduate and Development Manager" according to the summary, and he only made 68K (in pounds, so in dollars it's something like 130K). Hell, I make that much as an individual contributor. I've seen salary lists at places I've worked and interviewed at, and executives make 5 to 10 times what I make. Even directors make twice what I do, if the company has managers, directors, VPs, CxOs.
I'm the CEO of my household. Actually I'm VP and CTO. My wife is CFO, CEO.
I think "executives" should be held up to a higher standard of values then "regular" employees. An executive that advertises they are looking for work is showing no commitment or respect for his/her current employer. An executive is paid a lot of money to run a company and keep it successful and to keep moral high, if they are unable to recognize the error of looking for job opportunities online, the effect it has on the moral of the company, then it is not acceptable for them to maintain an executive position, period.
Had this been an article about a regular Joe employee being fired for posting a CV online then I would be outraged, but an executive should be more discreet in searching for new work as they are getting paid a lot of money to protect the interests of the company that is employing them.
Most of you are applying moral outrage extrapolating the idea that you could be fired if you look for work online, however you are not paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for the sole purpose to aid in RUNNING a company. An executive has significantly more responsibilities at a company then showing up and punching a keyboard for 8 hours a day. Executive != keyboard jockey.
I fully agree that this company had a right to fire this "executive" and think the guy that got fired deserves the results for not being more clever and discreet if they are unhappy with their current employer.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Of course this makes it easier for them to state that having him there was a detriment to their company. :)
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You know there is more to life than only the employers point of view.
Employment is a 2-way street for both parties. Good employees bend over backwards for their employers and realize that their own needs do not matter to the employer and that its needs need to be addressed. Likewise a good employer realized employees have lives outside of work and that good talent needs a reason to stay loyal and will treat him/her with respect.
When one party only cares for itself that is when you have problems. Employers got a free ride from 2008 - 2011 and liked it. We got a free ried from 1998 - 2001. A correction is needed and employers need to stop whinning when they are the ones who advertise at-will-employment in their job postings who overwork, never give vacations, expect 70 hours a week, underpay, and all of the sudden act shock that employees are begining to look elsewhere as market conditions improve. Shocked! Well some programmers who wanted 90,000 a year and called in sick once a month got shafted too after 9-11!
Seems only fair that a good balance is needed. Employers need to stop thinking only of themselves and plan for things like this. Executives leaving is part of the job as they would not hesistate to fire an underperforming one themselves.
http://saveie6.com/
The problem with that argument is that he isn't being paid 'vital for the company' money. According to http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/, that salary is about average for "Architect" / "Senior Developer" positions. The key being average. If this guy is so vital to the company, either in an executive or technical capacity, they need to be paying a _lot_ more. For example, the top 10% of "[Java] Architect" makes over £95,000/yr.
So I have a very hard time believing that he was some vital member of the company if his wage was average for a non-vital position. Hell, if he was simply good at his job the company isn't paying enough (probably; I don't know what the duties of that position are) to even dissuade the occasional unsolicited head hunter. (However, I would say that I don't suspect that is the case... You don't fire someone over a triviality like this unless they aren't quite replaceable, even to the point where it's more like an excuse for finally kicking them out.)
I have never gotten any pussy off that website, so I classify it is totally useless.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
> To play devil's advocate, the employer could claim that the very
> fact that an important executive was looking to leave could give
> the impression to outsiders that something bad was going on in
> the company and that could result in a loss to their business.
There's an old saying that everything is for sale. I am not trying to sell my house, but if someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $1,000,000 for it, the next words out of my mouth would be "Great! I'll tell my wife we're moving."
In that sense, damn near everyone is willing to look at new career opportunities. You'd be stupid not to. No one should read that much into it. The CEO could be getting $20 million a year, but if another company walked up with an offer of $50 million, damn right he'd be "interested".
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Invariably in these situations, there is more to be found if you scratch the surface a bit.
Perhaps he was sleeping with the boss's wife. Perhaps he's an obnoxious, abrasive prat. The fact that he's suing (instead of just moving on) suggests as much.
The lawsuit eventuated because they used an inappropriate dialog in getting rid of him. Ironically, if he had just taken it on the chin and moved on, his career would not have been significantly impacted. The fact that he is suing has ended his career.
Karma's a bitch like that sometimes.
FTFA: "BG Group ... accused him of including confidential information in his CV, such as details about how he had reduced the firm's rate of staff attrition."
His dedication to this goal only went so far, apparently.
I think "executives" should be held up to a higher standard of values then "regular" employees. An executive that advertises they are looking for work is showing no commitment or respect for his/her current employer. An executive is paid a lot of money to run a company and keep it successful and to keep moral high, if they are unable to recognize the error of looking for job opportunities online, the effect it has on the moral of the company, then it is not acceptable for them to maintain an executive position, period.
Had this been an article about a regular Joe employee being fired for posting a CV online then I would be outraged, but an executive should be more discreet in searching for new work as they are getting paid a lot of money to protect the interests of the company that is employing them.
Although the article refereed to Mr Flexman as an "executive", he was not the CEO. He wasn't even a VP. His title was "Graduate and Development Manager". This puts him in a gray area. He was not a "keyboard jocky" he wasn't the identifiable face of the corporation, either. Your assertion that the top levels should be held to a higher standard is valid but I don't "executive" is the grade anyway. The distinction should be made at "officer". Officers already have different legal obligations that regular employees. If are not on the board of directors than you are just an employee and the standard rules should apply.
I unchecked that box the minute I got the job I really wanted; I wanted to be clear that I was going somewhere I wanted to stay. The reality is that if you have skills/experience a company really wants they will call you regardless of what a "check box" says. Even with that box checked I get a call to my desk at work at least once a month (people who take the time to look up the office number and navigate the dial by name directory) as well as an e-mail a week or so.
It is safe to assume that this isn't the only company that would notice such a thing, so if in doubt uncheck the box on your own LI profile.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
FYI - The LSE stock markets show values in pence. It's only gone up by about one pound.
... I'd be amazed if this isn't about managment cliques, he wasn't popular with one, they went digging for dirt, they found his profile, and they've tried to use that to shaft him. With any luck it's about to backfire quite spectacularly.
That would be my guess too. Back in the old days when I used to be an employee, starting a couple of weeks before my review day, I'd show up for work late, wearing a suit. People would jokingly ask "how was the interview?" and I'd reply with a serious face "pretty good, interesting company." Apparently I had one of the highest salaries among my peers, go figure.
"Except the BG Group's stock price has actually continued an upward trend since before Mr. Flexman was "forced to quit", and has actually risen by $100 / share in the past 5 days."
you're the problem. 'stock went up, so everything is automatically fine.'
you account for 99% of bubbles and large-scale securities fraud, as well as the largest cases of corruption and the subversion of law. sorry to be the one to break it to you, nothing personal.
A 'CV' is what the British call their resumes
HTH
Important executive? The guy was earning 68k as a graduate.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I suspect that phonedogs senior management may not have realized the difference in both legal and employment culture in the USA.
yess from my back ground in BT I can imagine the unreconstructed nature of their senior management - "Hairy arsed engineers" who think that HR is for girls and pooftas.
I think they are going to lose as its custom and practice to use linked in for networking and putting your CV on linked in is part of that process nowadays. And as he was a recruiter he could argue that that tick box was for people to contact him who might want to work for BG.
Will have to look out for that one on xperthr at work.
Hes a HR bunny and a recruiter at that, HR 100k jobs are very rare unless your a very senior HR/IR guy in very big (FTSE 100) companies.
no he was Graduate development manager not a recent grad himself
I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law.
This is an area where there is substantial difference. The UK's rules are very much not "at will"; a dismissal that doesn't follow exactly the stated procedures for the company (which are constrained by law and have to be set out in writing ahead of time) will open up the way to an unfair dismissal claim (which is typically processed by tribunal in the UK, rather than normal courts). Would the claim be successful in this case? I've no idea at all, but UK companies don't dismiss without being very careful about it (unless the company's in Administration, the approximate equivalent of Chapter 11).
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
This claim should be successful. Normally in the UK dismissal requires a verbal warning, written warning, then your notice with time to correct the situation between. Skipping any of these steps requires "gross misconduct". Knowingly skipping safety rules that could lead to someone getting injured is gross misconduct, floating your CV on the net isn't. The appropriate guidelines are here, and there's even a page about constructive dismissal (this wouldn't be the first case, it's probably the first involving linkedIn status). That is a government run site so should be reasonably accurate, although legally it can only be used as a guide.
The comment about being in administration probably refers to making someone redundant. However if challenged by the leaver the company needs to prove that the role is being closed, and that there was no alternative role they could have offered you. There are also statutory payouts (based on time spent with the company), which it doesn't sound like the case for this guy.
Please post your replies in ENGLISH. I can't understand your jibber jabber.
If I was an employer, and some one mentioned that he is not interested in career opportunities, I would fire him. It is part of the employer's role to keep employees satisfied and challenged.
Still, a pound out of 14 on a company with a £50bn market cap is still worth £3bn or so. I don't think they'd have to argue he cost them anything near that order of magnitude to justify dismissal.
I am a recent departee of BG Group...they are dumber than a bag of dicks. If not for the engineers in their employ (gas engineers, not IT) they would have been out of business years ago. They do pay well for IT jobs, but 99% of their "employees" are contract. They have something like 3500 FTE and 20,000 contractors.
Except the BG Group's stock price has actually continued an upward trend since before Mr. Flexman was "forced to quit", and has actually risen by $100 / share in the past 5 days.
Share prices on the LSE are quoted in pennies, so the rise is actually about £0.80 (from £13.60 last Thursday up to £14.40 today).
Except this is a *constructive* dismissal case - where you are forced to resign as your position has been made untenable, in otherwords the company has constructed it to effectively dismiss you
More difficult to prove, but if the details presented (that 21 other people, including the manager in charge of the disciplinary process, had also ticked the box, and there were no confidential details) are true, the guy shouldnt have a problem.
Actually, I believe ALL of the states in the USA recognize "at will" employment as the standard. The only variations have to do with EXCEPTIONS to the rule which some states allow and others don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Interestingly, one of the statutory exceptions Federal govt. seems to universally recognize is failure to fire someone according to any rules printed in a company's own employee handbook.
I am surprised that OP would describe someone as an 'executive' when they're earning that little and carry a 'manager' title. That's far from being an executive in most organizations. Executives usually carry a VP title, and are usually able to speak for the company (i.e. have P&L responsibility and authority to enter into a contract). A manager usually simply has some people reporting to them, and in a modern organization their authority is firmly circumscribed. As to the substance of the story, there has to be more to it. If everyone who was willing to entertain an offer was fired, there would be noone left.
On £68,000.00 per year which is not much less than what the Prime Minister makes. Having said that; if you want to prostitute yourself around as "available" then what do you expect?
It is just like someone "tarting it themselves up" in the Press and then complaining when your breast implants explode and the press have a field day with you. /MOTD The press might be your friends today, but tomorrow are your worst enemy. If you really want the limelight then you have to accept "Rough with the Smooth".
All cows eat grass!
Any company that finds out an employee is actively seeking other engagements is likely to show them the door on the company's terms and schedule, rather than wait for the employee to leave at an inopportune time.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It strikes me as a very stupid way to handle the situation on the part of the company.
Firstly, an ambitious employee can most definitely be an asset to a company, if they are celver enough to keep him/her.
Secondly, if the employee was actually unhappy with the job, perhaps the company should see this as an opportunity to address the problem. If one employee is disgruntled, it is quite likely that there are others; dissatisfaction leads to low morale, which leads to poor results - this sort of thing is too important to ignore.
Thirdly, if an employee genuinely wants to leave, the company could do worse than to help him in a positive way; if an employee leaves with a good feeling, he will remember that in a new job and may even send business back to his previous employer.
"He is thought to be the first person in the UK to bring a case for constructive dismissal."
Er, riiiight. In other news, UK's first ever thief is caught, using new "fingerprint" technology.
Firing someone in order to prevent him from quiting is like burning down your house to prevent burglary.
And as pointed out in many comments already - by the salary you can tell it's about a mid-level manager not a senior executive.
Most posters here don't seem to understand how very different the UK is from the US with regards to employment law.
An employer cannot fire me if they find out I am looking for other roles. They cannot take any punitive action. The absolute worst they can do is stop promoting me or giving me increases.
At my level (senior tech / lower management) I actually inform my line manager when I start to look for a new role and when I go for interviews. This results in an adult, respectful and largely healthy transition. It avoids all the skullduggery I see from my US colleagues and is actually better for the team I leave behind as people can plan accordingly.
Most people I've worked with in Europe find the idea of the at-will state to be abusive and would never support something like that in their region.
There's a difference between your CEO announcing he wants to leave, and some middle ranking training manager ticking a box on Linkedin.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sounds pretty shaky legally.
"Forced"? Was he under duress? Did they beat him with a hammer until he signed the papers?
Of course they could have transferred your position to the North Pole. While dick move, unless you have written into your job, contract, or agreement, preventing it I don't see how this or something like it would be illegal.
I guess bottom line, is if they are going to treat you that way anyway, do you really want to work there...
I'm "interested" in career opportunities. However, I forward them to my manager so he knows what our competitors are doing.
Constructive dismissal is when the master (aka the employer) treats the servant (the employee) so badly that he is constructively dismissed. Though its much harder to prove constructive dismissal the penalties for the employer are not capped as they are in standard unfair dismissal cases.
:-) - though as ex public sector they might be in for some grandfathered in juicy ex pat benefits
. I suspect given the provenance of the employer that the role was a mobile grade though I suspect moving your job to the north pole would not be covered