Man wins £28,000 payout after being sacked for complaining about his firm on Facebook

A man has won nearby £30,000 after he was sacked for complaining about his employer on Facebook.

Michael Austin wrote on his private page after having an argument at work: ‘I don’t think I have ever felt so low in my life after my boss’s comments today’. 

Some of his friends on the social media site tried to support him by criticising managing director Matthew Robinson.

Some used the homophobic slut ‘shirtlifter’ about Mr Robinson, who is gay, while another user urged him to ‘punch (him) in the face to make him feel better’.

An employment tribunal heard Mr Austin did not reply to or agree with any of the negative comments,.

However, Mr Robinson, 55, accused his employee of damaging his business’s reputation and sacked him, saying he had violating the company’s social media policy.

He accused the classic car paint specialist of ‘inciting’ the comments in January last year and claimed he ‘brought his dismissal upon himself’.

But a judge has now ruled that Mr Austin could not be expected to ‘police’ the comments of other people.

Now, Mr Austin, who worked at A1M Retro Classics in Darlington, County Durham, for six years, has been awarded £28,560 compensation after suing the company for unfair dismissal.

The tribunal had heard that Mr Robinson and Mr Austin previously argued, with Mr Austin claiming the business’s cars were ‘overpriced’ and Mr Robinson alleging his employee ‘bullied’ him.

A1m Retro Classics sells vintage cars dating back to the 1950s, including Triumphs, MGs, Jaguars, Fords, and Rovers.

The company repairs, services and restores vehicles and the most expensive car on its website is a 1982 Lotus Espirit for £24,995.

Employment Judge Declan O’Dempsey said Mr Austin had no control over what others commented and ruled that he did not violate the company’s social media policy.

Judge O’Dempsey, who said Mr Robinson’s investigation was ‘flawed’, said: ‘I find that the managing director’s thinking… unreasonably confused [as to] what was required of an employee by the social media policy.

‘The policy did not require the employee to police the comments of others, but simply not to engage in discussions having a particular effect.

‘The managing director could not, under cross examination, maintain that [Mr Austin] was doing anything more than expressing his own personal views, and criticised him for omitting to do something which the social media policy does not require him to do: taking down posts made by others.

‘(Mr Robinson) accepts that there was no duty on (Mr Austin) to police the conduct of the participants in this Facebook discussion.

‘So in those circumstances he cannot be expected to be repentant in any relevant way for something which is not within his own conduct. For all those reasons, I have concluded that the dismissal was unfair.’

Judge O’Dempsey said the post didn’t clearly damage the reputation of Mr Robinson’s business. 

He said: ‘I conclude that the investigation of the alleged misconduct was flawed.

‘In short it was not clear whether there was any impact on the reputation of [A1M Retro Classics] outside the group of Facebook friends of [Mr Austin].’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.