Facebook dismissals – Always know your policy and follow procedure

legal updates

To be precise, the employer was ordered to pay £28,560 after this case was heard at Newcastle Upon Tyne Employment Tribunal.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

A recent employment tribunal case emphasised that dismissal based on an employee’s social media posts may prove costly.

To be precise, the employer was ordered to pay £28,560 after this case was heard at Newcastle Upon Tyne Employment Tribunal.

The facts of this case are straightforward. The claimant was employed as a paint sprayer by a dealer in classic cars. He once had a heated telephone conversation with the managing director of the company over how the business should be run. Soon, the employee posted the below on his personal Facebook account:

“I don’t think I’m a bad person but I don’t think I have ever felt so low in my life after my boss’s comments today.”

This post provoked a number of comments, which were detrimental to the company and its business. One commentator referred to the general manager, a gay man, as “shirt-lifter”, amongst other homophobic remarks. Another commentator suggested “the boss should be punched in the face to make the employee feel better.”

Naturally, the employer was unhappy with this social media coverage. The employee was called to a disciplinary meeting and, consequently, dismissed. The dismissal decision was upheld on internal appeal. A social media policy was in place and was referred to in the disciplinary process.

Still, the dismissal was ruled unfair by the tribunal and the employee was awarded a favourable sum.

Initially, the tribunal looked into the employer’s social media policy. It turned out the policy was not very helpful to the employer as it regulated the type of posts and comments an employee of the company should not be making. The policy did not contain a general prohibition on publishing materials relating to situations at work; not that such blanket prohibition would be handy, as it may infringe on the employee’s freedom of expression. Crucially, the policy said nothing about the comments made in response to the employee’s initial post. As the tribunal said, “the employee was not required to police the conversation.”

The tribunal was prepared to accept the employee may have acted improperly in letting the Facebook situation develop. However, no investigation was carried out to establish who could see the posts (selected groups or the general public), the size of said group or whether any colleagues or customers actually saw the post and possibly left any comments. The social media policy was also silent on what privacy settings should be used for posts mentioning work.

The social media policy and the investigation were obviously inadequate. Following from this, dismissal was not a reasonable response to the employee’s Facebook post. The tribunal also commented the company could have asked the employee to remove the post and the following discussion in the first instance.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

The employer’s response was tarnished by other procedural breaches which included not giving enough notice to the employee to prepare for the meeting, the disciplinary nature of the meeting and the allegations not being explained properly nor the right to have a companion present.

In the age of social media, it is not exceptionally rare for a disgruntled employee to vent frustration on social media platforms instead of using the correct channels. What action the employer should take in response needs to be carefully considered.  A social media policy will be helpful if appropriately worded. Investigation should not be skipped or rushed through. Lawgistics, of course, will be able to guide you through these steps.

Kiril MoskovchukLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Can my employees tell me it is too hot to work?

Bosses should make sure they are doing all they can to keep their people cool, especially in areas where machinery might generate extra heat.

Change management

The consequences of failing to manage workplace change effectively can increase employee resistance and deplete employee engagement.

Can a notice to terminate employment be withdrawn?

An employee’s refusal to agree to treat the notice as ineffective and to continue employment may have serious consequences.

Claims of harassment related to age and sex

Mr King was found to have crossed the line by making reference to Mr Finn’s appearance which had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and/or offensive environment.

ACAS conciliation

Employers can also contact ACAS directly for assistance in mediation with a former employee.

The primary purpose of a contract of apprenticeship is training

If you take on an apprentice it is vital you have an apprenticeship agreement in place which is a contract of service.

Right to work – adjusted checks extended to 30 September 2022

Job applicants and existing employees can send scanned documents or a photo of documents for checks using email or a mobile app, rather than sending originals.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.