A solicitor who changed contact details on a Facebook account following a ‘loss of trust and confidence’ between her and her firm was unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has found.
Lucy Crossman, admitted in 2008, was employed by Walsh Solicitors specialising in criminal litigation work from 2016 until 2021.
During her notice period following her resignation and amid a ‘developing’ lack of trust, Crossman changed the Facebook profile contacts to a new personal number after learning from the phone provider that her work number would be cut off.
Walsh solicitors, which has offices in Stockport, Macclesfield and Blackburn, held a disciplinary hearing before dismissing Crossman for misconduct over the ownership of the Facebook account and the right to vary the profile’s contact details.
Ruling on the claim, Employment Judge Johnson said firm owner Terence Walsh, who conducted the disciplinary process ‘appeared to be concentrating on catching out Ms Crossman and little time was spent in exploring the likely truth behind the issue’.
He said: ‘Mr Walsh as disciplinary hearing officer genuinely held a belief that Ms Crossman had carried out acts of misconduct and that these were gross in nature. However, we were unable to accept that these were reasonably held.
‘A degree of suspicion had developed between both sides during Ms Crossman’s notice period and Mr Walsh appeared to see the worst in her behaviour concerning the Facebook changes and it stoked his fears about a solicitor secretly mobilising the firm’s criminal clients to move with Ms Crossman when her employment ended.’
The judgment found the background issues ‘could not amount to misconduct which was sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal’.
It added: ‘We do not accept that any consideration was actually given to alternative sanctions but this is not surprising as the whole process was conducted with the aim of dismissing Ms Crossman. An even handed approach was not adopted.’
For her part, Crossman had not ‘fully explored a mutually agreed and transparent solution to her work phone and social media use with her employer before resorting to the drastic action that she took regarding her contact details’.
It added: ‘This was not helped by her suspicion that she was being sabotaged by her employer and as evidenced by contemporaneous social media messages once she had given her notice of resignation.
‘While this might be the case however, any misconduct was relatively minor and certainly not gross.’
The tribunal found Crossman was unfairly dismissed. Her complaint of wrongful dismissal was also successful. The case will proceed to a remedy hearing unless the parties reach an agreement.
