Case 1303942/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claire Smith v Turnock Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303942/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Steward
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claire Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Assembly Operative from 3 August 2020 until her dismissal on 25 April 2023. The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct, principally because of a Facebook meme which it considered to breach its Social Media and Internet Use Policy, alongside other conduct and performance concerns.
The tribunal found that the Facebook post was general in nature, did not directly criticise Turnock Ltd, and was unlikely to damage or adversely affect the company. It held that discussion, guidance, or a warning were possible responses, and that dismissal for the post was outside the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal also found the procedure unfair. The claimant was given virtually no notice of the disciplinary meeting, was not informed of the allegations in advance, no notes were kept of the relevant meetings, and the appeal was arranged at very short notice. The claim for unfair dismissal therefore succeeded, with remedy to be dealt with at a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeds and that the matter will be listed for a remedy hearing; no award is determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- band of reasonable responses
- ACAS code
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.