Train driver dismissed for racist tweets: unfair dismissal but no compensation
A train driver with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed for posting offensive tweets, but the tribunal awarded no compensation due to his blameworthy conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #social-media
- #racist-tweets
- #gross-misconduct
- #policy-not-received
- #contributory-conduct-100
Key facts
- The claimant was a train driver with 12 years' service and an unblemished record.
- He posted offensive and racist tweets on his personal Twitter account between November 2019 and April 2020.
- The respondent received an anonymous complaint about the tweets in June 2020.
- The claimant lied during the investigation, claiming his account was hacked, and deleted his account during a fact-finding meeting.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, but the tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent had no reasonable grounds to believe the claimant knew the relevant policies.
- The tribunal reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 100% due to the claimant's blameworthy conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a train guard.
-
Qualified as train driver
Claimant qualified as a train driver and operated from Wimbledon depot.
-
Tablet and policies issued
Claimant received a tablet and was given policies including the Social Media Policy, but did not sign the briefing form.
-
DDD briefing
Claimant attended a driver training briefing where the Social Media Policy was discussed.
-
Diversity re-tweet
Claimant re-tweeted a post against immigration and multiculturalism.
-
Islam re-tweet
Claimant re-tweeted a cartoon depicting Islam negatively.
-
NHS tweets
Claimant tweeted about immigration and the NHS.
-
BLM tweet
Claimant tweeted an offensive comment about Jeremy Corbyn and Black Lives Matter.
-
Deportation tweet
Claimant tweeted support for deportation flights and referenced grooming gangs.
-
Chinese tweet
Claimant tweeted a racist comment about Chinese people and COVID-19.
-
Anonymous complaint
Respondent received an anonymous letter complaining about the claimant's tweets.
-
First fact-find meeting
Claimant lied about his account being hacked and deleted it during the meeting.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal was heard but dismissal upheld.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing on unfair dismissal.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal but reduced compensation by 100% for contributory conduct.
The legal issue
Whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing a train driver for posting racist tweets on his personal Twitter account, and whether any compensation should be reduced because of the driver's conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The employer did not have reasonable grounds to believe the driver knew the social media policy, as he had not signed the briefing form and the policy was not adequately brought to his attention. However, the driver's conduct – posting offensive tweets, lying about his account being hacked, and deleting his account during the investigation – was blameworthy and contributed entirely to his dismissal. The basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 100%, resulting in no compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure employees have actually received and understood relevant policies before relying on them for disciplinary action.
- Lying during an investigation and deleting evidence can be considered blameworthy conduct that reduces compensation.
- Even with an unblemished record, gross misconduct can justify dismissal, but the fairness of the process depends on the employer's reasonable belief in misconduct.
- Personal social media posts can lead to dismissal if they breach company policy, but the policy must be clearly communicated.
What this case shows
A train driver with 12 years' service and an unblemished record was dismissed after posting a series of racist and offensive tweets on his personal Twitter account. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer could not show the driver knew the social media policy – he had not signed the briefing form when the policy was issued, and a later training session did not adequately cover it. However, the driver's own conduct – including lying that his account was hacked and deleting it during a meeting – meant he was entirely to blame for his dismissal. As a result, he received no compensation.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer's main failing was not ensuring the driver had actually read and understood the social media policy. A signed acknowledgment would have provided clear evidence. The investigation was otherwise thorough, but the lack of reasonable grounds to believe the driver knew the policy undermined the dismissal. Employers should document policy distribution and training carefully, especially for rules that apply to personal conduct outside work.
Why the result matters
This case highlights that even when an employee's behaviour is clearly unacceptable, a procedural flaw can make a dismissal unfair. But it also shows that tribunals can reduce compensation to zero if the employee's own conduct contributed to the dismissal. For employees, it is a reminder that lying during an investigation can have serious consequences, even if the dismissal itself is found unfair. For employers, it underscores the importance of clear communication of policies, particularly those covering off-duty conduct on social media.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.
Two teaching assistants dismissed after cocaine incident at school: one unfair but no compensation, other wins disability claim
A teaching assistant was unfairly dismissed over a cocaine incident at a special needs school, but received no compensation because she would have been sacked anyway. A second assistant won a disability discrimination claim after her mother was refused as a companion at her disciplinary hearing.