16/10/2026
A veterinary receptionist who received a final written warning for sharing someone else’s Facebook post about quitting her job was later constructively unfairly dismissed, a tribunal has ruled.
The Bury St Edmunds tribunal heard that Miss M Baulch shared a post referring to ‘signs it’s time to quit your job… when they don’t respect you’, without adding any comment or mentioning her employer, Milton Keynes Veterinary Group.
The company treated the post as gross misconduct and gave Baulch a final written warning. This followed an informal warning for failing to refrigerate laboratory equipment and earlier concerns about her clothing.
However, employment judge E Davey found the disciplinary process was “fundamentally unfair” because the company judged Baulch’s Facebook post against an updated social media policy that had not yet been introduced to staff.
Baulch continued working for several months, but further conduct concerns and disciplinary proceedings followed, culminating in what the tribunal called the “last straw” leading to her resignation.
Judge Davey found Baulch’s final written warning had been issued unfairly because she had been judged against a social media policy that was not yet in force.
“Employees are entitled to know the standards against which their conduct will be judged,” the judge said.
Davey said it was “difficult” to conclude Baulch had significantly breached the policy that applied at the time, as she had shared somebody else’s post, added no comment and did not mention the company.
The tribunal found the company gave conflicting explanations for investigating an incident involving Baulch returning to her usual branch, which Davey said suggested it was “looking for reasons to discipline” her.
It also found the grievance and appeal breached the Acas code of practice. Baulch’s line manager handled the initial grievance, there was no meaningful investigation and she was refused more time to prepare for an appeal. Davey described the process as a “tick-box exercise”.
Davey described the further disciplinary allegations as “at best tenuous” and of “questionable substance”. The decision to pursue them while Baulch remained subject to the final warning was the “last straw”.
The tribunal found she had acted promptly in response to the later breaches and was entitled to conclude the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down.
The tribunal also rejected the company’s argument that she could fairly have been dismissed for misconduct, finding any dismissal would have been influenced by the unfair warning and allegations that had not been shown to amount to serious misconduct.
The tribunal concluded her constructive dismissal was unfair.
If you HR support to deal with a process or to ensure you company handbook and policies are all up to date and correct, call us on 03333 660 567 or email [email protected]
