Should this guy lose his job

[alfred russel]

The statement, which I know is a meme, is still rather sexually aggressive and demeaning.

Are you doing everything possible to promote a safe harassment free workplace for women if you let this sort of person continue there? Putting it another way, if in a couple years time he is accused of sexual harassment, could this increase the exposure of the company if this is entered into evidence?

[crazy canuck]

The published claim is that he;s being fired for violating the Code of Conduct. However, it isn't something that actually falls within Hydro's published code of conduct, which is here:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2FCareers%2FDocuments%2FCode_of_Business_Conduct.pdf&ei=TnZSVcycD8z_yQTZoIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHDxtn88UHWrGmWBt6hGPwmPSgxWg&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw

See p. 11, "harrassment". It all has to do with harrassment in the workplace.

My take - assuming he's not unionized - he'll probably get notice. Of course a company can fire someone for being an asshole or embarrasing them, but it looks like they will be on the hook for notice.

I am not so sure.  A company can claim cause if the actions of the employee outside the workplace could result in reputational damage.  And this looks to be at least an arguable case.

[Malthus]

The published claim is that he;s being fired for violating the Code of Conduct. However, it isn't something that actually falls within Hydro's published code of conduct, which is here:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2FCareers%2FDocuments%2FCode_of_Business_Conduct.pdf&ei=TnZSVcycD8z_yQTZoIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHDxtn88UHWrGmWBt6hGPwmPSgxWg&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw

See p. 11, "harrassment". It all has to do with harrassment in the workplace.

My take - assuming he's not unionized - he'll probably get notice. Of course a company can fire someone for being an asshole or embarrasing them, but it looks like they will be on the hook for notice.

I am not so sure.  A company can claim cause if the actions of the employee outside the workplace could result in reputational damage.  And this looks to be at least an arguable case.

Possibly - depending on whether the employee was identified as an employee at the time of the incident, or identified as a result of the incident by the employer. A company can hardly "out" an employee itself, and then claim reputational damage as "just cause" for an identification it made itself.

I'm merely stating that the reason the employer actually gave in the article - that its code of conduct was violated - is very arguably wrong; the Code seems to only anticipater work-related harrassment.

[Josephus]

Let's rephrase my original intent to this.

Do you think this guy's being hard done by?

[Admiral Yi]

Nope.  Karmic justice.

[Josephus]

I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.

EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story

[garbon]

Let's rephrase my original intent to this.

Do you think this guy's being hard done by?

No, actions have consequences even when inebriated.

[crazy canuck]

I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.

EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story

Yes, that is the take home message that young people really have to understand.  Being stupid on social media can have significant consequences and social media is everywhere.

The world is a very different place from when you and I were young. 

edit: and in answer to your question about him being hard done by.  If I found out one of my employees did that I would have to be convinced it was completely out of character in order to persuade me to keep him around.

[Eddie Teach]

Cal will hire him.

[Ed Anger]

I would, but I have a NO CANUCK policy.

[dps]

Let's rephrase my original intent to this.

Do you think this guy's being hard done by?

Let me put it this way:  The guy's an asshole, so I don't care if he loses his job.

OTOH, do I think there is good cause to fire him?  No, because his actions in this incident had nothing to do with his job--it would be way more than sufficient to be good cause if he had done the same thing at work, but that's not the case.  Then again, as others have stated, employers don't need good cause to fire someone;  barring contractual provisions to the contrary, an employer can legally fire any employee at any time for any reason other than discrimination.

[Norgy]

Anything about conduct harming the company's image?

That's what I'd think were the best grounds for firing.

Anyway, fire the bastard.

[Josephus]

Anything about conduct harming the company's image?

That's what I'd think were the best grounds for firing.

Anyway, fire the bastard.

This coming from a guy with an avatar showing a young woman and the word Fellatio   

[Josephus]

If I found out one of my employees did that I would have to be convinced it was completely out of character in order to persuade me to keep him around.

I think I would be the same way. I might sit the person down and have a chat. But this guy works in a large corporate environment. People who fired him probably never met him.

[Admiral Yi]

Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be, if someone does something that merits a smack in the gob, he should be fired for it.