Dismissal after a safety post at Calder Logistics

Mira has four years' service, so she meets the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal. The reason given is conduct, bringing the company into disrepute, which can be a potentially fair reason. The question is whether the employer acted reasonably. Calder's process is weak: a ten-minute meeting with no proper investigation, no witnesses interviewed, no advance disclosure of allegations, no right to be accompanied, and no appeal, despite the contract requiring a hearing and an appeal. The band of reasonable responses test is likely to be failed on procedure alone. The substance is also weak because Mira had raised the broken guardrail two weeks earlier and no repair was done; her post was about safety, not personal abuse. If the post is a protected disclosure, dismissal for that reason could be automatically unfair, although the fact it was posted in a Facebook group of colleagues may complicate the disclosure analysis. Wrongful dismissal is separate: if Calder dismissed without notice and the contract required a hearing and appeal before summary dismissal, or if gross misconduct is not established, Mira may have a breach-of-contract claim. The employer will argue the post was disloyal and that she could have raised it internally, but she did raise it internally. Overall, unfair dismissal is likely; wrongful dismissal is arguable but depends on the notice and contractual terms.

Calder should have treated the safety complaint and the Facebook post as linked but separate matters. It should have investigated the broken guardrail immediately and recorded the action taken. For the conduct allegation, it should have given Mira written notice of a disciplinary hearing, set out the specific allegations and evidence, and allowed her time to prepare. She should have been told of her right to be accompanied. The hearing should have been conducted by someone independent of the earlier safety complaint, with HR advising rather than deciding. The company should have interviewed witnesses, considered the context of the post, and allowed Mira to explain and to offer mitigation. It should have considered whether a warning, social-media training or a narrower restriction was a proportionate response. The decision-maker should have recorded reasons and offered an appeal to a different manager. If the company believed the post was a protected disclosure, it should have taken legal advice before dismissing. It should also have reviewed its social-media policy and its safety escalation process. A fair process does not guarantee a different outcome, but the current process makes the dismissal very hard to defend.

Mira should act quickly: unfair dismissal claims normally must be brought within three months less one day of dismissal, after early conciliation. She should keep the Facebook post, the earlier safety email, the suspension letter, the dismissal letter, her contract and any evidence of loss. She should request her personnel file and the disciplinary notes. Remedies for unfair dismissal include reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation. The basic award depends on age, service and weekly pay; the compensatory award covers lost earnings, future loss and possibly injury to feelings in some claims, subject to mitigation and any contributory fault. If the dismissal is automatically unfair for whistleblowing, the cap on compensation may not apply. For wrongful dismissal, she can claim notice pay or damages for breach of the contractual disciplinary procedure, usually in court or as part of the tribunal claim. She should also consider whether the failure to repair the guardrail supports a health-and-safety detriment or whistleblowing claim. She should mitigate by looking for work and keep evidence. Legal advice is important because the overlap between unfair, wrongful and whistleblowing claims affects the strategy and the remedy.