Resources: Blogs

It wasn’t me


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

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

Commission finds inappropriate social media use formed valid reason for dismissal

Message delivered

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission has confirmed that an employee’s inappropriate use of social media group chats may form a valid reason for dismissal, particularly when matters relating to work are discussed.


Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.


Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.


First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.


Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


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 law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.