Hi I recently underwent a disciplinary hearing and was dismissed, for using social media, something my employer had no policy for.

I have started a claim for unfair dismissal.

But as well as this I am claiming the process was unfair because of the following.

The hearing officer considered new evidence after the hearing, and then formed her decision.(this is in writing)

At the appeal one of the panel stated she hated social media and people that used it.(this should be in the minuets)

Both very unfair in my eye's what do the enlightened people on here think?

Hi pa38

Can you please provide more details?

I think you were unlikely to have been dismissed simply for social media use and it may have been bringing the company into disrepute or theft of company time.... what does your actual dismissal letter say?

what was the gist of your social media use they objected to?

How long have you been employed by this employer for?

I worked for a local authority for 14 years unblemished service, and it was disrepute by posting tongue in cheek humour to a closed circle of friends, in my own time. But mentioning whom I worked for on my title page I brought them into disrepute.

Also the department I worked for are having savage cuts and I have not been replaced.

So the dismissal wasn't for use of social media.. so the fact they have no media policy is irrelevant.

Sadly one of those things, if you wouldn't say it to the bosses face, you don't put it in writing. Old problem, new medium.

I didn't mention any one I worked with or clients, the only link to work was the title page.

well, you can go into some more detail on "tongue in cheek humour" for a more detailed opinion, but as I say, if you wouldn't say it to the boss's face...

Things that would get you sacked at my place if you posted on FB

..my clients are so stupid they..insert punchline

anything racist or sexist

my boss is a *insert curse word*

My main reason for bringing the case was not the reason for my dismissal, but the way it was handled, in my mind completely unfairly.

Evidence considered after the hearing not giving me a chance to respond, and a biased panel member on the appeal.

I'd say it's important to know when you're flogging a dead horse.

Panel member who doesn't like t'internet? Doesn't change what you posted. Irrelevant.

Additional info after the event - depends. Depends if it was substantial or if they had enough to let you go at the first investigatory meeting, etc.

Being a union member would be handy here as they'd know what sort of penalties others had got.

Pleading overly harsh penalty and oodles of remorse tends to get you further at appeal than arguing the toss about why management are evil. Is only logical.

The words 'social' and 'media' when put together cause massive concerns for any employer and they tend to come down very hard on what is perceived as 'disrepute', even for a first offence.

Without wishing to be patronising, having one's employer listed on a homepage, even if it is only visible to 'friends' makes it almost impossible to say anything negative in any context as it will then be perceived as the thoughts of a representative of that organisation. That is a fact, and one always has to consider that whatever is written, whether a joke or a fact, praise or criticism is essentially open to the world to see. Bringing a company into disrepute through posting on social media is always going to be something which 1. Constitutes Gross Misconduct and 2. Does not need a specific policy to constitute a lawful dismissal should it come to that.

Any appeal (and you MUST appeal since there is a reasonable chance that a dismissal could be overturned) must be based on the facts:-

You were guilty of a misjudgement but that this was not malicious and you would never knowingly bring the authority into disrepute

You have a long period of unblemished service and are devastated that a simple and honest mistake, made without malice, has caused this to be tarnished

You are fully remorseful for your actions and apologise for the time and trouble that the authority has been put to in dealing with the incident

You believe that dismissal, for a first offence and in view of your previous and log good service, is an overly harsh sanction

You appeal for the sanction to be reconsidered and for a lesser punishment to be imposed and are willing to receive any retraining or guidance that may be provided.

You will obviously never give the authority further cause to question your judgement or integrity and will be a model employee should they be good enough to re-engage you.

Grovelling will be involved, and is entirely necessary. They (on the face of it) have a just and lawful reason to dismiss, and you are appealing for them to reconsider when they strictly speaking do not have to. An appeal HAS to be considered though, and should be heard by somebody not involved in the original decision. You need to persuade that person to be strong enough to convince the original panel to overturn their decision.

My main reason for bringing the case was not the reason for my dismissal, but the way it was handled, in my mind completely unfairly.

Evidence considered after the hearing not giving me a chance to respond, and a biased panel member on the appeal.

I'm going through exactly the same with the local authority I work for. Doing me for theft of time when I used the internet. Everyone does it but it was me that was singled out. Bias investigating as well