Postman dismissed for abusive Facebook posts: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A postman with 15 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to work, posting abusive comments about colleagues on Facebook, and behaving aggressively. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #facebook-posts
- #gross-misconduct
- #anonymous-whistleblowing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a postman from 7 June 2004 until dismissal on 18 March 2020.
- On 5 October 2019, the claimant refused to perform his duties and stood at the office gate.
- The claimant posted abusive comments about colleagues on Facebook on 5 October 2019.
- On 7 October 2019, the claimant behaved aggressively towards managers when informed of his suspension.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct following a disciplinary process.
- The claimant made an anonymous protected disclosure call on 3 November 2019, but the decision-makers were unaware of it.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a postman for Royal Mail.
-
Disability acknowledged
Claimant began suffering from stress, anxiety, and depression, accepted as a disability by the respondent.
-
Refusal to work and Facebook posts
Claimant refused to start his delivery round, stood at the gate, and later posted abusive comments about colleagues on Facebook.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended after behaving aggressively when informed of the suspension.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Meeting held where claimant admitted making Facebook posts but said he was not in the correct frame of mind.
-
First disciplinary hearing (adjourned)
Hearing started but postponed due to claimant's emotional state; occupational health referral made.
-
Anonymous protected disclosure
Claimant made an anonymous call to the respondent's confidential helpline alleging various misconduct.
-
Resumed disciplinary hearing
Conduct meeting held where claimant was found guilty of gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal hearing conducted by Helen Worfell; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, whether it was automatically unfair because of an anonymous protected disclosure, and whether the respondent discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments or treating him unfavourably because of his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the dismissal was fair and not discriminatory.
- The claimant refused to work, made abusive Facebook posts about colleagues, and behaved aggressively when suspended.
- The respondent conducted a thorough investigation, including a fact-finding meeting and adjourned disciplinary hearing to allow for occupational health input.
- The claimant's anonymous protected disclosure was made after the decision to suspend and was unknown to the decision-makers.
- The respondent made reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability, including reduced hours and a consistent delivery route, and the misconduct was not caused by his disability.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Gross misconduct dismissals can be fair even for long-serving employees if the employer carries out a reasonable investigation and follows a fair process.
- Making abusive social media posts about colleagues can amount to gross misconduct, especially when combined with refusal to work and aggressive behaviour.
- Anonymous whistleblowing calls made after the employer has already taken action are unlikely to protect an employee from dismissal for separate misconduct.
- Employers should consider occupational health advice and adjourn disciplinary hearings if an employee's mental health may affect their ability to participate.
A case about conduct, not disability
This case shows that even a long-serving employee with a recognised disability can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct when the behaviour is serious and unrelated to their condition. The postman, who had worked for Royal Mail for 15 years, refused to perform his duties, posted abusive comments about colleagues on Facebook, and then behaved aggressively when told he was being suspended. The tribunal accepted that his stress, anxiety, and depression were disabilities, but found that the misconduct was not a consequence of his disability.
What the employer did right
Royal Mail followed a thorough process. It held a fact-finding meeting, adjourned the first disciplinary hearing to obtain occupational health input, and gave the claimant time to respond. The decision to dismiss was made by managers who were unaware of the anonymous whistleblowing call the claimant made after his suspension. The appeal was conducted independently. The tribunal concluded that the investigation was reasonable and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the whistleblowing and discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that his anonymous call to a confidential helpline was a protected disclosure and that his dismissal was automatically unfair. However, the call was made after the suspension decision and the decision-makers did not know about it. The disability discrimination claims failed because the claimant had not asked for any specific reasonable adjustments related to the misconduct, and the respondent had already made adjustments for his disability, such as reduced hours and a consistent route.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who engage in serious misconduct cannot rely on a disability or a subsequent whistleblowing call to protect them from dismissal. Employers who follow a fair process, consider medical evidence, and make reasonable adjustments for disabilities are likely to defend such claims successfully. The key is to separate the misconduct from any protected characteristics and to ensure the disciplinary process is procedurally fair.
Similar cases
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Trader dismissed for alleged leak after raising mismarking concerns: unfair dismissal upheld
A trader with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed by EDF Trading Limited after a flawed investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but rejected his whistleblowing claim.