Facebook dismissal fair

During the investigation, the Claimant accepted that she was aware of the company`s policies in respect of Facebook and other such sites which stated that employees should not post anything that would lower the reputation of the company or its customers.  Should this happen, the company reserved its right to take disciplinary action. She also accepted that her actions in posting the comments had breached the policy. However, she argued that the privacy settings in place on her account would have limited those who viewed the posts to between 40 and 50 close friends and could not have been viewed by all of her 600+ Facebook friends let alone the wider public.

A disciplinary hearing was held after which the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. She appealed on the basis that the mitigating factors (such as the abuse suffered and the limited number of people able to see the comments) she had put forward were not considered. Her appeal was not upheld. Her claims regarding the limited audience to her post were found to be incorrect as the customer`s daughter had managed to see it.

The Tribunal found that the company had satisfied the test in British Homestores v Burchell in that it had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation that the Claimant had committed an act of gross misconduct. It also held that the Respondent`s actions in dismissing her were justified in view of the risk of damage to its reputation.  Although the Tribunal panel said they would have issued a warning rather than dismissed the Claimant in the circumstances, they could not substitute their decision for that of the Respondent and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.