Resources: Blog

Fair Work Commissioner considers Facebook posts as evidence in an unfair dismissal matter


It wasn’t me

Employees active on social media (such as Facebook) fail to consider who might be able to see their personal online posts at any given time.

Employees active on social media (such as Facebook) fail to consider who might be able to see their personal online posts at any given time. The consequences can be significant – particularly in an employment context.

It is becoming increasingly common for employers to review their employees’ social media presence at various stages of the employment relationship, particularly when claims are made against the employer by an employee or former employee. So, what happens when an employee’s social media post contradicts a claim that they make against an employer? Can the employer use a social media post, or even the employee’s entire profile, as evidence in the defence of a claim?

Last month, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) provided some insight into the question in Wragg v Queensland Scaffolding Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 4986. In this case, the FWC not only indicated its willingness to accept social media posts as evidence, but went so far as to actively review the social media pages itself.

The case addressed jurisdictional issues raised in response to an unfair dismissal claim made by Mr Wragg. As the employee’s unfair dismissal application was lodged 81 days late, the issue before the FWC was whether there were any ‘exceptional circumstances’ that permitted the FWC to allow an extension of time for the making of an application.

The reason for the delay given by the employee was that he was depressed due to personal circumstances and was, during those 81 days, incapable of taking care of himself. He also submitted that he was travelling to remote parts of Australia.

In defending the claim, the employer produced evidence that the employee had been active on Facebook, posting reviews about products and his activities, and chatting to friends through the ‘comment’ function. The FWC accepted this evidence and took it into account when considering the employer’s jurisdictional objection to the employee’s unfair dismissal application.

The FWC also went beyond the evidence submitted by the employer and reviewed the employee’s Facebook page itself. In doing so, it discovered a wider range of social media activity on the part of the employee, which contradicted his claim. The FWC commented:

“During the investigation I had the opportunity to review Mr Wragg’s Facebook profile for the months from the dismissal until 23 March 2018. I observed that Mr Wragg was relatively active, including posting a video of him crossing a creek bed in a 4WD, together with ‘selfies’ taken by him.”

While the FWC accepted that the employee considered himself depressed, it refused to accept that he was ‘extremely incapacitated’ so as to prevent him from making his unfair dismissal application on time. The FWC relied on both the posts submitted as evidence by the employer and the additional social media activity it sought out itself. Although not the only evidence relied upon, the Facebook posts were a significant factor that the FWC considered in refusing to grant an extension of time to the Employee.

Lessons for employers

Employers should be conscious of the ways in which employees use social media, including how this might impact on the employment relationship and be relevant to any claims made during and after employment.

This decision indicates that, in the face of a claim made by an employee, the FWC is prepared to consider relevant evidence in the form of social media posts. Employers are generally entitled to rely on posts they see on social media to support their cases as long as such information is not obtained by any breach of privacy laws.

It is also useful for employers to be aware that the FWC is entitled to inform itself as to any matter it considers relevant and may, of its own will, investigate social media profiles.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

High Income Threshold increase from 1 July 2022

News Alert

From 1 July 2022, the high income threshold increased to $162,000 per annum.


Employer’s lack of procedural fairness rendered the dismissal of his employee harsh

No show cause

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), whether an employee’s dismissal was procedurally fair is a key factor in determining whether the dismissal was unfair. Procedural fairness requires an employee be given an opportunity to respond to or explain an allegation put to them by their employer. The employer must consider that response or explanation before deciding the disciplinary penalty – eg: a warning, or termination of employment.


Employer dismisses long standing employee for breaching drug policy

Organic panic

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.


Post-employment restraint found go beyond what is enforceable

There’s nothing holdin’ me back

It is not common for employment contracts to contain restraint of trade clauses which seek to prevent departing employees from joining competitors or using or disclosing their former employer’s confidential information.


Commission finds employee was dismissed despite “heat of the moment” resignation

Talk before the walk

One of the key elements of a procedurally fair disciplinary process is for the employee in question to be notified of the seriousness of the process (including the potential disciplinary penalties) and to be provided with an opportunity to respond to any allegations before a decision as to disciplinary action has been made.


Application to vary redundancy pay dismissed

No points for the assist

The entitlement to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is one which is intended to minimise the adverse impact of a redundancy on affected employees, such as loss of job security and the potential difficulties associated with obtaining new employment in the open market.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.