A social media worker for the National Museums of Scotland has won more than £20,000 after she was sacked for not posting enough and for making too many typos.
In a single month, digital content producer Anita Briggs created just six social posts – compared to a colleague’s 73, an employment tribunal heard. The employee was not performing to the ‘standard’ required of her for nearly two years as she would regularly miss deadlines and make spelling errors, the hearing was told.
In one instance, Ms Briggs failed to create a single piece of content in a month and when she did, the quality was ‘substantially below what was expected’. After the employee failed three performance reviews, bosses lost ‘confidence’ in her work ability and she was sacked.
However, the tribunal found that she was not given enough warning of her potential dismissal and she has now been awarded £22,210 in compensation. The tribunal, held in Scotland, was told Ms Briggs was hired by the organisation in 2009 and worked as a Digital Media Content Producer.
Her job role included planning, co-ordinating, and creating new content for the organisations social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and X. Employment Judge Stuart Nielson said the production of content was ‘extremely important’ for the business, which is largely funded by the Scottish Government and runs four museums across the country.
These are the National Museum of Scotland and National War Museum in Edinburgh, the National Museum of Rural Life in East Kilbride and the National Museum of Flight in East Lothian. The tribunal heard that in the period from 2021 to June 2023, Ms Briggs reported to Digital Media Content Producer, Russell Dornan.
It was heard the after joining he ‘had concerns’ with the producer’s performance and in May 2022 he met with her to discuss. Ms Briggs was put on an informal Personal Improvement Plan [PIP] and was asked to improve her attention to detail, increase her output, and perform tasks via agreed processes.
The PIP concluded some six months later and it was heard Mr Dronan felt there had not been any ‘satisfactory improvement in performance’. The tribunal noted that at this time Ms Briggs was dealing with a ‘number of challenging personal issues’.
Mr Dornan asked Ms Briggs to do another informal PIP and it was heard she was ‘not happy’ with this proposal and explained that there were ‘reasons why she had not performed as might have been expected’ that year. The content producer said she felt that Mr Dornan was intimidating and ‘has it in for me’.
The following year, Mr Dornan left and the role was taken over by Ms Hannah Barton. Her second PIP concluded and her new manager identified that the objectives set had ‘not been met’ by Ms Briggs.
It was heard that from June to August 2023, Ms Briggs had ‘produced only two pieces of content’ which was ‘substantially below what was expected of her’. And it was said that one of these ‘required significant amendment‘.
EJ Nielson: “Ms Barton considered that required performance had not been met as there were continued errors around typos, spelling, grammar and proofing; missed deadlines for producing content and a failure to follow processes for work allocation in line with wider team priorities.”
The content producer was off sick for a period of time and upon her return to work she was notified that a formal PIP would commence until January 2024. She was told that at the end of this process there could be a formal meeting and this may result in dismissal.
But, just a month after it commenced, Ms Briggs failed to produce any content for the entirety of November. In December, she produced six social posts which was ‘substantially below’ what was expected, especially in comparison to one of her colleagues who produced 73.
After she failed yet another PIP hearing, Ms Briggs was invited to a formal hearing and it was heard that Ms Barton had ‘no confidence’ in the producers ability to design, coordinate and execute required content. The content producer was sacked on the grounds of lack of capability.
She appealed the decision but this was dismissed and Ms Briggs took the museum to an employment tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal. The employee said there had been a ‘long-standing orchestrated campaign to terminate her employment’.
The tribunal agreed that there were ‘clearly concerns’ about Ms Briggs’ performance in her role at the museum and recognised there was a lengthy period in which her ‘performance was under scrutiny’.
“There was simply no evidence of any conspiracy or campaign to terminate the employment of [Ms Briggs] for a reason other than capability,” EJ Nielson said.
Ms Briggs won her claim after the tribunal found she was not provided with any formal warnings of the potential dismissal. EJ Nielson said: “The Tribunal concludes that it is not as there were no formal warnings issued in terms of the Performance Policy.
“[Ms Briggs] has a legitimate expectation that the [museum] will follow the terms of the Performance Policy and it would be reasonable to expect at least one level of formal warning prior to dismissal. That did not happen here.”
The panel ruled that Ms Briggs had been unfairly dismissed and ordered The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland to pay her £22,210.75 in compensation.
Don’t miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond – Sign up to our daily newsletter here..