FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AIBP LIMITED, WATERFORD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in an administrative capacity by AIBP Limited, Waterford, on 5th January, 1998. She claims she was unfairly dismissed on the 14th of April, 1998, for "accessing sensitive companyinformation". The Company states that her dismissal was justified as she was considered unsuitable.
The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th of November, 1998.
The Company did not attend the hearing but submitted a letter to the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up to her dismissal the claimant got on well with her colleagues, including her superiors who found no fault with her work.
2. The worker carried out most of her work on a computer and was never informed that certain files were not to be accessed as they contained sensitive company information. Her colleagues regularly accessed these files.
3. She accessed the files out of curiosity on how the system works and was not interested in the information contained therein.
4. The worker suffered a loss of earnings and has been traumatised by the whole affair. She is seeking compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the hearing but submitted a letter to the Court.
This letter stated that he was not prepared to detail any of his reasons for considering the employee unsuitable, as to do so would dilute his right to terminate employment during a probationary period of an employee who was deemed to be unsuitable. The Court does not accept the implications of that statement.
The Court considered this letter and the written and oral submissions from the claimant.
The particular incident that triggered the dismissal"was the accessing of sensitive company information".
Having considered the information before it, the Court accepts the claimant's explanation that her accessing of the particular file was based on curiosity in relation to the technology rather than, as was alleged, for commercial reasons.
The Court finds it strange that this sensitive company information was so accessible and that the password to it seems to have been known within the plant.
While accepting the need for confidentiality on sensitive information, the Court finds that the manner of dismissal of the claimant was unfair. She was denied natural justice, given no chance to properly defend herself, given the serious view the Company was taking of her actions.
The Court notes that the employee was given no contract of employment or letter of appointment. The Court, having found the manner of dismissal to be unfair, recommends that the employer pay the claimant £1,400 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th November, 1998______________________
G.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.