25-year postal worker dismissed over Facebook comment: a fair call by Royal Mail
A postal worker with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed after a Facebook post implying managers bully and harass employees. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #social-media
- #facebook-post
- #gross-misconduct
- #reputational-damage
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a postal worker for 25 years.
- On 5 July 2022, a comment was posted on the claimant's Facebook account on the CWU's Facebook page implying managers bully and harass employees.
- The respondent's social media policy prohibits comments that could damage the company's reputation.
- The claimant denied posting the comment, claiming her husband had done so using her account.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing and appeal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment with Royal Mail Group Ltd.
-
Sick leave began
Claimant started sick leave due to a heart condition.
-
Facebook post
A comment was posted on the claimant's Facebook account on the CWU's Facebook page: 'what will happen when RM work out we don’t need all the management bullying and harassment to do our jobs? Maybe sack a few more?'
-
Telephone call from manager
Helen Marley telephoned the claimant to discuss the Facebook post; claimant initially appeared to acknowledge the post.
-
Seeking an explanation meeting
Claimant attended a meeting with her union rep and denied making the post, stating her husband had done so.
-
Husband's statement
Claimant's husband provided a signed statement claiming he posted the comment using his wife's account.
-
Fact-finding interview
James Cunliffe conducted a fact-finding interview; claimant reiterated her husband's involvement.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant was informed of formal conduct meeting regarding alleged breaches of business standards and social media policy.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Helen Marley conducted the disciplinary hearing; claimant maintained her husband posted the comment.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Simon Walker heard the claimant's appeal and upheld the dismissal.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim of unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing before Employment Judge Callan.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found dismissal fair and dismissed the claim.
The legal issue
Whether Royal Mail fairly dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a Facebook post that allegedly brought the company into disrepute, specifically whether the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing her.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that Royal Mail fairly dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that Royal Mail had a genuine belief that the claimant posted the comment, based on a reasonable investigation. The claimant's denial and her husband's claim of responsibility were considered but not accepted. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the potential reputational damage.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for social media posts that damage reputation, even if the employee denies posting, provided there is a reasonable investigation.
- Length of service does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal for gross misconduct if the conduct is serious enough.
- An employee's claim that a family member posted the comment may not be accepted if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.
- A reasonable investigation includes considering the employee's explanation but does not require the employer to accept it if there are grounds to doubt it.
A 25-year career ended by a Facebook post
This case shows how a single social media comment can end a long career, even when the employee denies making it. The claimant, a postal worker with 25 years' service, was dismissed after a comment appeared on her Facebook account on a CWU (union) page. The comment read: 'what will happen when RM work out we don’t need all the management bullying and harassment to do our jobs? Maybe sack a few more?' Royal Mail viewed this as a breach of its social media policy, which prohibits comments that could damage the company's reputation.
The claimant maintained that her husband had posted the comment using her account while she was on sick leave. Her husband provided a signed statement to that effect. However, Royal Mail's investigation found that the claimant initially appeared to acknowledge the post during a telephone call with her manager, and the disciplinary hearing officer did not accept the husband's account. The tribunal noted that the employer's belief was reasonable in the circumstances.
What Royal Mail did right
The tribunal highlighted that Royal Mail conducted a thorough investigation, including fact-finding interviews and a disciplinary hearing. The employer had a genuine belief that the claimant was responsible for the post, and that belief was based on reasonable grounds. The appeal process also upheld the decision. The tribunal applied the 'range of reasonable responses' test, which gives employers a degree of discretion. It concluded that a reasonable employer could have dismissed in these circumstances, given the potential reputational harm.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that social media conduct outside work can still have serious employment consequences if it links to the employer. Employees should be cautious about what appears on their accounts, even if they claim someone else posted it. Employers, on the other hand, should ensure they carry out a fair investigation before dismissing, as Royal Mail did here. The fact that the claimant had 25 years of service did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct in the eyes of the tribunal.
Similar cases
Long-serving wellbeing worker dismissed for continuing meals project after final warning
A wellbeing worker with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after he continued a free meals project with his son, despite a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.