Tweet
I want to keep this as brief and generic as possible.
Employee (let's call her lola) has worked for a very well known charity for a year. Very good at her job, well liked by her team and her clients, always willing to help and get involved.
Lola was invited into a facebook group which was designed to be a petition to create a needed resource. Whilst in the group, Lola got into a heated debate with somebody. By all accounts it seems Lola was calm and rational and merely trying to get her point across in a reasonably balanced way, referencing what the topic is used for in the mainstream. The person she was debating with (we will call him Mark) took offence to this. He stated he felt he was being 'ousted' for being unqualified (as Lola works in the field and he does not). He repeatedly said he felt she was trying to discredit him. Lola made 2 attempts to end the conversation as did an online bystander who remarked that Mark was coming across as pushy. Lola signposted to the mainstream website (NHS) and a site to find qualified professionals. Mark took massive offence and felt he was losing 'interest' from potential people in need of help as he considered himself a teacher in the area, albeit unqualified and with no references. Lola consistently said she was trying to ensure people could make an informed choice about who they chose to teach them.
Mark took it upon himself to contact Lola's head office and complain. He complained she was harassing him and 'message after message' online. He forwarded selected screenshots of the messages. (Not all messages from either party).
The admin of the group removed all trace of the debate and this is not recoverable. The admin knows Mark personally but not Lola.
Lola did not state she was working on behalf of the charity. Her initial welcome post was "I am Lola, I am a xxx worker who works for xx charity and I have personal experience of xxx". Her posts state "in my personal opinion and in my professional opinion" but not anything to suggest her employer's practice or opinion.
Lola's boss attended an unrelated board meeting where the petition was mentioned in passing, and a passing comment of "oh, we have Lola from your charity on board" was made. The boss was caused some embarrassment as he was unaware of the petition, or Lola's involvement.
The complaint - and the boss's embarrassment - was filtered through the chain of command to Lola's manager and then the team leader, who brought it up with Lola.
Lola gave a detailed account of what had happened, she expressed she felt ethically bound to challenge the comments that Mark had made as they were potentially dangerous. She stated she had only provided generic signposting to the NHS and given the same description of the topic as the NHS. She denied harassing Mark and said that she and another tried to end the debate but he persisted and that he replied to all messages and sent others. The example of Lola's comments given were appropriate and generic. Lola has since had personal messages from 2 impartial persons thanking her and backing her up on her comments. Lola stated she did not intend to give the impression that she was working on behalf of her employer. She merely said that she worked for them in the same context as a person may say "I am Sarah, a midwife in the NHS". Lola's team leader agreed her explanation of the topic was appropriate.
Lola agreed to withdraw from the group and has done so. She also agreed to run past her employer any future endeavours she partakes in in her personal life that are related to her employment field.
Lola is now concerned her employer may have grounds for disciplinary or dismissal by her "damaging the reputation" of the charity or it's employees or "bringing them into disrepute"
The only available evidence are the selective screenshots Mark has forwarded to her employer, and Lola's screenshots of personal messages she has received.
Lola's intentions were good and it seems the debate came about because Mark was broadcasting spiritual beliefs in a manner that directly implied he was a teacher and could do things he could not, such as cure people. This led vulnerable people to publicly believe this and caused great concern. Mark is not a qualified teacher in this area and has not completed any approved courses in this area. He has valuable life experience.
Any advice?
Employee (let's call her lola) has worked for a very well known charity for a year. Very good at her job, well liked by her team and her clients, always willing to help and get involved.
Lola was invited into a facebook group which was designed to be a petition to create a needed resource. Whilst in the group, Lola got into a heated debate with somebody. By all accounts it seems Lola was calm and rational and merely trying to get her point across in a reasonably balanced way, referencing what the topic is used for in the mainstream. The person she was debating with (we will call him Mark) took offence to this. He stated he felt he was being 'ousted' for being unqualified (as Lola works in the field and he does not). He repeatedly said he felt she was trying to discredit him. Lola made 2 attempts to end the conversation as did an online bystander who remarked that Mark was coming across as pushy. Lola signposted to the mainstream website (NHS) and a site to find qualified professionals. Mark took massive offence and felt he was losing 'interest' from potential people in need of help as he considered himself a teacher in the area, albeit unqualified and with no references. Lola consistently said she was trying to ensure people could make an informed choice about who they chose to teach them.
Mark took it upon himself to contact Lola's head office and complain. He complained she was harassing him and 'message after message' online. He forwarded selected screenshots of the messages. (Not all messages from either party).
The admin of the group removed all trace of the debate and this is not recoverable. The admin knows Mark personally but not Lola.
Lola did not state she was working on behalf of the charity. Her initial welcome post was "I am Lola, I am a xxx worker who works for xx charity and I have personal experience of xxx". Her posts state "in my personal opinion and in my professional opinion" but not anything to suggest her employer's practice or opinion.
Lola's boss attended an unrelated board meeting where the petition was mentioned in passing, and a passing comment of "oh, we have Lola from your charity on board" was made. The boss was caused some embarrassment as he was unaware of the petition, or Lola's involvement.
The complaint - and the boss's embarrassment - was filtered through the chain of command to Lola's manager and then the team leader, who brought it up with Lola.
Lola gave a detailed account of what had happened, she expressed she felt ethically bound to challenge the comments that Mark had made as they were potentially dangerous. She stated she had only provided generic signposting to the NHS and given the same description of the topic as the NHS. She denied harassing Mark and said that she and another tried to end the debate but he persisted and that he replied to all messages and sent others. The example of Lola's comments given were appropriate and generic. Lola has since had personal messages from 2 impartial persons thanking her and backing her up on her comments. Lola stated she did not intend to give the impression that she was working on behalf of her employer. She merely said that she worked for them in the same context as a person may say "I am Sarah, a midwife in the NHS". Lola's team leader agreed her explanation of the topic was appropriate.
Lola agreed to withdraw from the group and has done so. She also agreed to run past her employer any future endeavours she partakes in in her personal life that are related to her employment field.
Lola is now concerned her employer may have grounds for disciplinary or dismissal by her "damaging the reputation" of the charity or it's employees or "bringing them into disrepute"
The only available evidence are the selective screenshots Mark has forwarded to her employer, and Lola's screenshots of personal messages she has received.
Lola's intentions were good and it seems the debate came about because Mark was broadcasting spiritual beliefs in a manner that directly implied he was a teacher and could do things he could not, such as cure people. This led vulnerable people to publicly believe this and caused great concern. Mark is not a qualified teacher in this area and has not completed any approved courses in this area. He has valuable life experience.
Any advice?
Comment