EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Employee - claimant UD1098/2012
against
Employer - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms F. Crawford B.L.
Members: Mr M. Carr
Mr J. Moore
heard this claim at Mullingar on 17th December 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s) : In Person
Respondent(s) : Purdy Fitzgerald, Solicitors, Kiltartan House,
Forster Street, Galway
Summary of Case
The respondent is a wholesale electrical company with approximately 36 employees. The Managing Director gave evidence that the claimant was employed from 1 November 2010 as a marketing assistant. The position was a full-time, five day week position but the company facilitated the claimant in allowing her to work a three day week until 1 November 2011 while she completed a graphic design course. From 1 November 2011 she worked 5 days per week. The Managing Director told the Tribunal that he and the office manager had verbally warned the claimant on a number of occasions about her non-work related internet useage. On 16 January 2012 he observed the claimant on a social media site and called her to his office and dismissed her from her employment. He believed that the actions of the claimant amounted to a waste of the company’s time and resources and her actions constituted gross misconduct. He accepted that the company did not have an internet social media policy in place at the time of the claimant’s employment and she was not provided with a contract of employment or a copy of the company’s disciplinary procedures.
The claimant gave evidence that she carried out all tasks assigned to her. Her desk and computer were in full view to others in her office location and she never believed that she was doing anything wrong. She was never given a job specification/job description or provided with a copy of the company’s internet policy. If she had been made aware of the company’s internet policy she would have abided by that but she was unaware of any policy. She told the Tribunal that she was constantly seeking work but was not provided with enough work. When she sought work from the Managing Director’s son prior to Christmas 2011 she was told to wind down for Christmas. Accordingly she had too much time on her hands and accepted that she spent time on the internet. This was done openly and out of boredom as she had not enough work. However the majority of the time she spent on the internet was work related. She gave evidence that she never received any warnings prior to her dismissal.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the sworn evidence and the submissions made by the parties. The Tribunal concludes that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and there were no valid grounds for her dismissal. Furthermore the dismissal lacked any procedural fairness insofar as no investigation or disciplinary process took place. It is also noted that the claimant was not provided with a contract of employment, payslips or an internet/social media policy during the tenure of her employment.
It was submitted to the Tribunal that the claimant was paid one weeks notice. Given that the Tribunal finds that there was no gross misconduct on the part of the claimant the Tribunal finds that the claimant is entitled to this one weeks notice as already paid. Accordingly in those circumstances the Tribunal awards the claimant the sum of €7,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)