It doesn’t matter if their main method of communication was crop dusting entire neighbourhoods with thousands of tattooed teddy bears. What matters is the conte

It doesn’t matter if their main method of communication was crop dusting entire neighbourhoods with thousands of tattooed teddy bears. What matters is the content of that speech. If you’re publicly slagging off a company that you’re contracted with (whether that’s as a supplier or employee) then that company is reasonably within their rights to say you’re bringing their image into disrepute and thus terminate that contract. The only issue social media brings I to the equation is that it makes it much easier for silly people to post silly things to wider audiences (and easier for employees to evidence that silliness too). Now given this employees job is support and that she’s already named the client that her employees serves, this could theoretically impact her employers renewal as a supplier (because that client are just as much in their right to terminate their contract as the employees are). Which is a pretty serious problem and might even cost her employers more than one FTE in lost revenue — in fact I’d almost guarantee that would be the financial cost to her employer in such a scenario otherwise it wouldn’t make financial sense hiring that employees to begin with. So what would you do? Keep an employee on the payroll who is costing you more than the value they add? Also bare in mind that they’re (if I read the article correctly) still within they’re probation and thus are still yet do demonstrate themselves. In this instance the company’s approach is correct: review her case but make it explicit that a potential outcome might be dismissal. This is exactly how a well structured HR department should operate even within territories with much stricter employment laws. The fact that she’s still sharing internal company discussions despite now being aware of the reach is has and the potential ramifications shows a lack of remorse. And that wouldn’t help her case during the review.