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."

6 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Definitely not first case... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative
  2. Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. The ironing is delicious by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Over-reaching by Zibodiz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I got fired from Office Depot because I had a second job. They required that all second jobs be approved -- not just by the corporation, but by the store manager. I got fired because my manager quit, and the new manager didn't approve of my second job, even though the last two had. My role was hourly, and I worked as the manager in the Print Center. My second job was in-home computer repair. I still fail to see how those are a conflict of interest.

  6. Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf by dkf · · Score: 4, Informative

    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'!"