The guard said the pair were Facebook friends and it was his inexperience with Snapchat that had contributed to his accidentally sending an image of his erect penis.
He claimed he had been trying to send photos of his new arm tattoo, which covered over a picture of his ex-wife, but that when selecting the tattoo photo he also inadvertently selected and forwarded the offending image.
He argued he had made an “honest mistake” and his new partner explained the image originated from their “highly visual relationship” where they often shared personal and private images.
‘Naughty images’
But the female colleague painted a different picture.
She claimed the guard had said via Snapchat that he had been drinking and told her that “when I am drunk I send naughty images”.
The colleague replied “do not send me a picture of your dick”.
He allegedly said: “Why? Don’t girls like dick picks because guys like to get clit picks?”
The guard then allegedly told her he had tried viagra and sent her an image of his erect penis with the message “was home alone… but before I wasn’t… fwb [friends with benefits]”.
Immediately after sending the image, he messaged her “shit don’t look. I’m so sorry” and told her he had meant to send an image of his tattoo.
Angry, the female colleague told several employees about the incident and said she would feel “pretty uncomfortable” interacting with the guard in the future.
‘Extreme outer limit’
Deputy president Bull found the guard’s claims he accidentally sent the image “strain credulity beyond any reasonableness”.
He warned an employer “should not delve into and concern itself with the private activities of its employees which occur outside working hours”.
But he found there was “no outside work connection” to the incident other than Snapchat given the two did not meet outside of work and did not have each others’ personal phone or email.
He held the image breached Sydney Trains’ social media policy and the female colleague’s concerns about seeing the guard at work provided “sufficient connection” to his employment.
“While the sending of the offending image may have been a one-off lapse of judgment, the image was at the extreme outer limit of offensiveness,” he said.
“It was unsolicited and sent after having been put on notice by [the colleague] not to send such an image.
“[The guard] overstepped the boundaries of acceptable conduct with a fellow employee to such a degree that no amount of regret or apology can lessen the seriousness of the incident.”
from Credence news https://ift.tt/2IFFaFX
0 Comments