New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer

Forums › Off topic › New Zealand Court Orders Facebook Disclosure To Employer

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#876639 13-Aug-2013 18:06

And that's why in the USA you are not required to give evidence that would incriminate yourself. And not giving the evidence is not in itself evidence of guilty and would not be seen as evidence of guilty.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#876661 13-Aug-2013 18:24

freitasm: And that's why in the USA you are not required to give evidence that would incriminate yourself. And not giving the evidence is not in itself evidence of guilty and would not be seen as evidence of guilty.

The NSA probably have a copy anyway, that they can use against you in a secret court without proper disclosure or due process

Twitter: ajobbins

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#876698 13-Aug-2013 19:27

Inphinity:

If a relative is sick enough you have to have time off work to care for them, you really shouldn't be taking them out to the movies imo...

I think that's crap. I took my cousin for a ride on my bike when he was sick... Had time off to do it.

Had time off the week later too.
After he died.

nickrout

221 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 38

#876721 13-Aug-2013 20:02

Heavens there is a lot of ill informed comment on this thread. It is fundamental in any civil litigation that you must disclose any documents that may affect the case, whether it helps you or not.

It is clear that what this woman was up to when she said she was on sick leave is in issue. Clearly the ERA thought the material (where she was shopping and what she was saying or doing on facebook) had some bearing on this.

Case closed. She brought litigation against her employer. She brought this on herself. You can't hide behind privacy to tell lies.

nickrout

221 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 38

#876722 13-Aug-2013 20:02

Sorry for the repeat posts

nickrout

221 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 38

#876723 13-Aug-2013 20:02

Sorry for the repeat posts

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

nickrout

221 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 38

#876726 13-Aug-2013 20:03

Quadruple post sorry, probably the GCSB interfering.

But I will add that the principle that you can't be forced to incriminate yourself has no bearing. It might in a criminal matter, but the police would just request the info from facebook and the bank and they would get it, if refused they would get a search warrant.

EvilSteve

232 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#876728 13-Aug-2013 20:20

Can you not delete posts made to facebook anyway?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#876744 13-Aug-2013 21:02

ajobbins:
I don't agree at all as it goes against the principals of our legal system (Innoncent until proven guilty).

/off topic
You may be interested in this:

Child-abusers must prove fitness as parents

Today Social Development Minister Paul Bennett revealed the full details of changes to be pushed through under the Vulnerable Children Bill.

Under the changes a parents who has been convicted for killing or abusing an infant or child, or who has had their child removed after abusing them will have to prove to Government they are fit to parent more children.

Until now the state had to prove the parent was unsafe.

Gets my vote .....

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#876779 13-Aug-2013 22:03

What if you take time off to help your sister with a mental health issue, and post up on facebook that your doing N activity with her. But actually it's as part of that process and/or because you don't want her friends/coworkers/other family members/etc asking her awkward questions, being as it's none of their business.

Far fetched as it may be, it's totally reasonable, would not actually be any proof of any wrong doing, and yet it would appear to be so.

As for bank statements, transactions go through on the wrong days all the time, so they also prove nothing.

nickrout

221 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 38

#876941 14-Aug-2013 10:14

They are still relevant:

Q: Ms X you say you were caring for your sister on sick leave, but you posted on facebook that you were taking the kids to Rainbows End and then getting rat arsed at your favourite bar. Your bank statement shows you paid an amount for entry to Rainbows End that is the amount it would cost for an adult and three kids (no sister) and then 15 entries for purchases at your favourite bar. How does that equate to "caring for your sister" like you told your boss?

A: It was part of my sister's therapy to go to Rainbows End with the kids - she lost her own child and has suffered. It is good for her to be with her nieces and nephews. She paid her own way into Rainbows End. Then we took the kids home and my husband looked after them while my sister and I went out to a restaurant and had a meal and a couple of drinks. That part was after working hours anyway. By the way you know my sister tried to commit suicide after your b****** client sacked me, thought it was all her fault for asking my support that day.

Although I know very little about this case and that exchange is entirely made up, you got to be careful what you ask and how you use the info, but it IS relevant. By bringing a claim to say she was legitimately on sick leave on day X, she opens up her life to inspection on day X. Remember the former employee is the one bringing the claim.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#876950 14-Aug-2013 10:29

nickrout:
A: It was part of my sister's therapy to go to Rainbows End with the kids - she lost her own child and has suffered. It is good for her to be with her nieces and nephews. She paid her own way into Rainbows End. Then we took the kids home and my husband looked after them while my sister and I went out to a restaurant and had a meal and a couple of drinks. That part was after working hours anyway. By the way you know my sister tried to commit suicide after your b****** client sacked me, thought it was all her fault for asking my support that day.

This example is already a violation of "sick leave"

Sick leave can be used when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee’s spouse or partner or a person who depends on the employee for care (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured.

Most companies would be OK supplying sick leave in your example. I certainly would expect a little leeway here. But I am not entitled to it. What I am entitled to in a case like this would be leave without pay.

It also all depends on your employer. Some will allow this sort of thing and not even question it. Others won't. Others will allow it to a point, until its abused! I believe there is a certain amount of trust between employee and employer for things like this.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#876975 14-Aug-2013 11:00

Klipspringer: This example is already a violation of "sick leave"

Mental Illness is a perfectly valid 'sickness' too

Twitter: ajobbins

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#876982 14-Aug-2013 11:12

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: This example is already a violation of "sick leave"

Mental Illness is a perfectly valid 'sickness' too

Ok I'll jump in on this one and it directly effects me...

That's just a mine field and one that makes mentally ill folk sicker in my view.

However the reverse of this debate comes into play. If a MI consumer is able to work then they should, it's good for health. However to much work can make them sick.

Consumers can be in trouble with WINZ if they earn to much or work to much. That stress can make them sick and then reduce their capacity to earn and work. Sure they can declare earnings and income, but the current structure of benefits actually makes that even more complex.

This entire space is just bonkers if you ask me.

I wonder if the woman in this case just wasn't wanted in her work place and the boss just took the chance to remove her?

I wonder why the woman couldn't talk to her employer and get leave she clearly wanted?

I was talking with a government worker the other day who has hundreds of hours of leave owning him and he can't get his applications accepted.

Where's the incentive to work? Where's the incentive to not just join the 6.3% of the population out of work and spend all day ranting on line?

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#876985 14-Aug-2013 11:16

DonGould:

I was talking with a government worker the other day who has hundreds of hours of leave owning him and he can't get his applications accepted.

Sounds unlawful. Our HR department forces us to take leave if we have more than about 30 days (5 weeks/160 hours) owing, to get back down to 20 days max.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12