Free tool

Social Media Firing Check

SOCIAL MEDIA FIRING — CASE LAW LOOKUP

Tell us about the post and we'll tell you the test the FWC and Federal Court apply, the leading cases on point, and the likely outcome. Based on Rose v Telstra (1998) and the post-2010 social- media unfair dismissal cases.

What kind of post was it?

Account type

Was the post on or off duty?

The post identifies (or makes obvious) your employer (e.g. uniform visible, employer named in bio, profile photo at the workplace)

High risk — often upheld

Leading precedent

Pearson v Linfox [2014] FWC 446; Mayberry v Kijani Investments [2014] FWC 8723; Banerji v Comcare [2019] HCA

The test

Public, identifiable criticism of an employer or named managers is typically a valid dismissal reason where: (a) the employer has a clear social-media policy, (b) the employee was on notice of it, and (c) the post damages the relationship.

Why this verdict

Once you're publicly identifiable AND publicly critical AND breaching a policy, the FWC consistently upholds the dismissal. The exception is where criticism is substantively true and relates to a workplace right (which moves into general protections territory).

This tool uses the post-2010 FWC + Federal Court case law on social-media-related unfair dismissals. Every dismissal case is fact-specific — these are the typical outcomes, not a guarantee. For a high-stakes matter, get advice from an employment lawyer.