In this GB employment tribunal case, the Claimant had been employed by the respondent for 17 years in the capacity as an operator of machinery in the bonding area of the manufacturing unit. At the time of the Claimant's dismissal she had a clean disciplinary record.

The respondents in December 2015 introduced a new social media policy and procedures to all staff as part of roll out of similar policies across the wider API Technology Group. The tribunal found that the Claimant was aware of the Policy and it could be assumed she had read it and must have been aware what was and what was not allowed.

Importantly, the document also reminds employees that conversations between friends on Facebook are not truly private and can still have the potential to cause damage, reminding employees that comments can be copied forward onto others without the permission, it stresses the need to not rely on privacy settings. The document concludes with breaches of this policy, and states that any breach of this policy will be taken seriously and may lead to disciplinary action under the respondent’s disciplinary policy. Serious breaches will be regarded as gross misconduct and may lead to summary dismissal under the respondent’s disciplinary procedure.

Seemingly upset at a proposed move of location, the Claimant wrote on her Facebook page, “PMSL bloody place I need to hurry up and sue them PMSL”. Her profile referred to her position within respondents as an operator and dogsbody, and the tribunal found it was clearly a description of her job with respondent and clear to see it was derogatory and insulting if not to the respondents then certainly to her colleagues occupying the same position.

The tribunal discussed the range of reasonable responses test, having concluded that the investigation we reasonable and had met the requirements of the Burchell test. It concluded that dismissal might seem harsh to some, particularly in the light of the Claimant's long clean record, but that it was within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer and the tribunal could not, therefore, interfere with the employer's decision.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5909db43e5274a06b30002d3/Mrs_E_Plant_v_API_Microelectronics_Limited_3401454.2016.pdf