suspension

[fishtank]

As mentioned above, they need to prove that you wrote it, that it was directed at RM and that it does bring them into disrepute.

No they don't.
They only have to make a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

[brothermagrew]

Interesting.

I'm no expert but a post on Facebook is not an email or a telephone call - telephones calls and emails are specifically addressed to an individual and can be traced back to the sender/caller. I would certainly argue that;

a) someone else posted the information (how and why you have no idea but there are other people in your house that could have accessed the computer no doubt)

b) Someone must have specifically looked at your Facebook to find the information, so why did they do that and who was it (i.e. somebody possibly has it in for you and is looking to harrass you)

c) In what way does it bring RM into disrepute if RM isn't mentioned, it could have been directed at the US Postal Service or Deutche Post, who can tell.

As mentioned above, they need to prove that you wrote it, that it was directed at RM and that it does bring them into disrepute.

Then to use your own words a post on Facebook is not an email or a telephone call - no arguments there but it is however a form of electronic communication.

[POSTMAN]

This isn't new We had a lot of this in 2007,also we've had sackings,(reinstated thank god) threats,suspensions for posting on RMC,Facebook and youtube.

[Pat Ostman]

As mentioned above, they need to prove that you wrote it, that it was directed at RM and that it does bring them into disrepute.

No they don't.
They only have to make a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

What facts? You have a statement alleged to have been made but that's not a 'fact' based on guilt, only assumptions alone.

[fishtank]

The point is Pat..you're employer doesn't have to prove anything to sack you.
It isn't a court of law.
A reasonable assumption of guilt is enough.

[coxie]

no names were mentioned, and secondly deny it