A worker who was sacked because her bosses believed a Facebook post they linked to her had criticised Ukrainian refugees for leaving the war zone and was “hate speech” has won over €10,500 for unfair dismissal.
Irene Glynn said her employer, the Carlow Dental Centre, gave her no opportunity to defend herself before sacking her. She also submitted that her account “could have been hacked for all the respondent knew” – adding that what a member of the public saw and reported “may not have been a posting” she made.
The Workplace Relations Commission found the Carlow Dental Centre had had failed to investigate the allegation against Ms Glynn and that the matter could perhaps have merited a warning, but not dismissal.
The tribunal upheld Ms Glynn’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Carlow Dental Centre in a decision published this morning, as well as awarding her statutory notice pay under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
“Ireland is on its knees; Irish working people can’t afford heating or food, yet refugees think it’s a free-for-all. Stay, fight for your country; our grandparents fought against the English, do the same,” read a screenshot of an alleged comment on the Irish Supporters of Ukraine Facebook page, submitted in evidence.
The screenshot had been sent to the clinic by a member of the public who sent a message to its Facebook page with the remark: “Your staff have very extreme views when it comes to refugees coming into Ireland,” the tribunal was told.
The clinic’s position was that it had “zero tolerance towards any written or spoken hate speech, racial remarks or anything that could cause any incitement towards minority groups”.
A text from a manager asking Ms Glynn to take down the post was met by a reply from Ms Glynn’s partner with an “instant denial”, the clinic’s representative said, adding that Ms Glynn’s partner also told the clinic “not to text the complainant’s phone again”.
The complainant said she was out on certified sick leave when the text came and that partner had her phone on the day in question.
The owners of the business met with senior managers the following Monday, January 9th, and decided to sack Ms Glynn for “serious and gross misconduct” – taking the view that the post was “hate speech” as defined by the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.
Ms Glynn said she got no opportunity to defend herself before being told she was sacked.
She said she “was not a member of a political group” and was “free to share her opinions” and entitled to “freedom of speech”.
The complainant said she was not told to stop posting at any previous stage, and that that her account “could have been hacked for all the respondent knew” – adding what the member of the public saw and reported “may not have been a posting” she made.
A witness for the employer who gave evidence said there was “nothing to be investigated” in relation to the post “as it was there for everyone to see”.
The witness said she was aware Ms Glynn “held strongly negative views on immigrants which she posted on her private Facebook page”.
The witness “had decided not to reprimand the complainant for these views given the very fine line when it comes to an employee’s private social media page”.
“Why do you want to blacken my name as a racist?” Ms Glynn asked the witness, who replied that she had “never” referred to her in such terms.
The witness said Ms Glynn was sacked because her alleged conduct “warranted immediate dismissal”, and denied that other factors were involved.
In her decision, Ms Deering wrote: “While every person has the right to freedom of expression, this right is not absolute.”
She noted the evidence of the employer side witness that she knew about Ms Glynn’s “social media posts regarding immigrants”.
“Yet ... she never thought to draft a social media policy,” Ms Deering wrote.
Ms Deering wrote that the onus was on the employer to prove there had been “substantial grounds” for dismissal, but that it “did not conduct any form of an investigation or verify how the post came to [its] attention”.
“The complainant’s [alleged] comments merited the respondent’s attention and perhaps a warning to desist or exercise caution in posting ... but they did not constitute gross misconduct,” the adjudicator wrote.
Noting the complainant was out of work for 21 weeks between her sacking and the hearing, Ms Deering awarded her 17 weeks’ pay, €8,552.31 in compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Act.
The adjudicator also made an order for four weeks’ notice pay, €2,012.31, under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, bringing the total orders in the case to €10,564.62.