In the case of Ms C S v Turnock Ltd the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Assembly Operative until she was dismissed for gross misconduct due to a Facebook post.
The Respondents also state other aspects of the Claimant’s conduct and performance were concerning but the principal reason for dismissal was the Facebook post.
Senior management spoke to the managing director about the Claimant’s behaviour and the impact it was having on other members of staff. They produced an entry of the Claimant’s Facebook page which had been discovered over the weekend. The Respondent took the view that this entry on Facebook denigrated both senior management and also the company and was in breach of the company policy on Social Media and Internet Use.
The managing director asked the Claimant to join him and senior management for a meeting in the canteen. The Claimant attended, the list of concerns was read out and the Claimant was asked to comment on each one. No contemporaneous notes or record was kept of the meeting. The Claimant was dismissed and given 48 hours to appeal the decision and an appeal meeting was held the following day. No notes of this meeting have been produced.
The Facebook post showed the figure of a woman blindfolded sat in front of at least one other figure who is also blindfolded. Above the woman are the words “Weve all had jobs like this….’ and below her are the words ‘How management act after you and your co-workers clearly point out the issues at work’.
Employment Judge Steward said ‘this seems to be a general post. It is not qualified by the Claimant making any comment and linking it in any way to her own job or working environment. It is difficult to say whether anybody looking at this meme would link it directly to the Claimant’s working environment. It is not directly critical of Turnocks Electrical. I think it is unlikely that this meme would have damaged or adversely affected the company’.
The Claimant was asked to attend a meeting with virtually no notice or advanced warning of what the meeting was going to discuss even though it was a serious meeting. No minutes were kept of the meetings.
After considering all the written and oral evidence the Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss the Claimant for reason of conduct was unfair. The Claimant could have been spoken to and advised about her conduct and potential impact on her and the company. The Claimant did not have a fair opportunity to prepare her case or put it.
Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the Claim for Unfair Dismissal succeeded, and the matter will be listed for a hearing to deal with the remedy stage.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
