Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Physiotherapist

A service provider.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00030706-001

05/09/2019

The Complainant is a physiotherapist and was employed by the Respondent from 19th September 2016 until 7th March 2019.

The Respondent worked 32 hours per week for the Respondent.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 5th September 2019.

Background to the Complainant 

2.           The Complainant began employment with the Respondent as a newly qualified physiotherapist. She initially started on a part-time contract on the 19th September 2016 which developed into a full-time contract over time. Her employment with the Respondent terminated on the 7th March 2019.

Background to the Claim

1.1              On the 31st January 2019, the Respondent received an email from the CEO of the A Nursing Home Group (client company) expressing concern over one of the Respondent’s staff members (the Complainant) who was involved in a potential data breach while working at one of their sites.

1.2              On 5th February 2019, an informal meeting was held with the Complainant concerning the potential data breach and that any updates on such would be conveyed to her.

1.3              On 13th February 2019, a meeting was held between the Respondent (represented by the Managing Director) and the CEO of the Nursing Home Group regarding the issue.

1.4              At the meeting it was revealed that following an investigation on site by the client, the Complainant had left open on a computer at the nurses’ station, confidential databases relating to the Respondent and their clients. It was later confirmed that the Complainant had compromised the confidentiality of these databases on multiple occasions throughout the 11 days she was on site between the 15th November 2018 and the 26th January 2019. This was as far as the records extended.

1.5              The confidential databases included: The Respondent’s database which contained information on all the residents of the various nursing homes that the Respondent worked with; the Team Site which contains sensitive company information; and another site called Asana, which contains the personal details of individual older adults and their families which the Respondent delivered private services to.

1.6              In addition to these contraventions, it was discovered that the Complainant had been using the computer at the nurses’ station for both work and personal use without the permission of the client.

1.7              While the outcome of the meeting concluded that there was no data breach, the client expressed that there had been an irreparable breach in trust between them and the Complainant.

1.8              The Respondent was subsequently instructed by the CEO of the Nursing Home Group that the Complainant would not be allowed to work on their sites in the future.

1.9              Following the meeting, the Respondent emailed the Complainant informing her about the main details of the meeting with the client.

1.10          On the 18th February 2019, the Complainant was invited to an investigation meeting scheduled for the 21st February. This date was subsequently rescheduled to the 26th February.

1.11          The meeting was chaired by the Managing Director, and Ms FC (Regional Manager) took the minutes. The Complainant was offered representation but refused.

1.12          At the meeting, all the printouts of the logins were reviewed with the Complainant and she admitted that she had failed at times, to logout of confidential sites.

1.13          When questioned about the personal logins, she stated that it could have been any member of the staff despite being presented with clear evidence to suggest otherwise.

1.14          On foot of the investigation, the Complainant was then invited to a disciplinary meeting on the 6th March 2019. She was again offered representation but refused. The meeting was chaired by the MD and Ms FC took the minutes.

1.15          The Complainant was sent on all policies including the disciplinary policy prior to the meeting.

1.16          At the meeting, the issues and facts were again conveyed to the Complainant but there were no noticeable changes in her response to these since the investigation meeting.

1.17          On the following day, the Complainant was invited into the Respondent’s office and received a disciplinary letter stating that her employment had been terminated due to gross misconduct.

1.18          The Respondent explained that the decision had been made on the basis that the Complainant’s conduct resulted in an irreparable breach of trust and confidence in the employment relationship. The Respondent further added that the conduct of the Complainant had the possibility of exposing the company to a potential data-breach and in turn, both reputational and financial damage.

1.19          The Complainant was offered the right to appeal against the decision but did not.

4.   Respondent’s Position

Unfair Dismissal Claim

4.1               As prescribed by the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed not to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from the conduct of the employee.

4.2               The arguments put forward by the Complainant are deemed to be insufficient in degree to refute the facts or mitigate the serious nature and consequences of the Complainant’s actions.

4.3               The Complainant’s actions which included leaving confidential databases exposed and using the work computer for nonpermissive purposes, amounts to a complete contravention of the Respondent’s Emails and Internet Use Policy and Confidentiality Policy. This breach of trust is clearly outlined as gross misconduct within the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy.

4.4               When considering what sanction to apply the company had regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the representations made by the Complainant within the process itself.

4.5          In relation to the sanction imposed by the Respondent, the principles to be applied in cases of gross misconduct have been clearly established over time, and the test as set out in Looney & Co. Ltd v Looney, UD 843/1984 is as follows:

“It is not for the Tribunal to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant, nor is it for the Tribunal to indicate or consider whether we, in the employer’s position, would have acted as he did in his investigation, or concluded as he did or decided as he did, as to do so would substitute our mind and decision for that of the employer. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s action and decision be judged.”

4.6          It is the Respondent’s position that a “reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances” would have reached a similar determination in the circumstances of this case. As such the company’s decision to dismiss was reasonable and fair in the circumstances, and no unfair dismissal took place. The actions of the Complainant destroyed the company’s trust and confidence in her and rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible, therefore justifying dismissal. This position has been upheld by the Employment Appeals Tribunal on several occasions, including in Knox Hotel and Resort Ltd, UD 27/2004, where the Tribunal stated that:

“[The claimant’s actions] destroyed the respondent’s trust and confidence in the claimant and rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible, thereby justifying her summary dismissal”

4.7          In light of all the above, the Respondent is of the opinion that the dismissal of the Complainant was procedurally fair in all respects. Without prejudice to this statement, were the adjudication officers to find that the procedure was flawed in any manner, the Respondent submits that any such flaw is minor in nature and that the severity of the substantive issue in this case outweighs any alleged procedural flaws. In this regard the Respondent refers to Walls Leisure Ltd v. Said Belarbi- EAT UD492/2008 in which the tribunal stated:

                “The respondent had a right to be notified of the disciplinary meeting, and he should have been told about the appeal process. These were clear deficiencies in the company’s procedures. However simply because there was a flaw in procedures does not automatically mean that a dismissal was unfair. When the Tribunal weighs the procedural deficiencies against the substantive issue i.e. theft of tips intended for employees under his supervision, the Tribunal considers that this matter outweighs the procedural defects.”

4.8          In her statement, the Complainant made an admission to her mistake. With respect to this, the EAT in Brendan O’Callaghan v. Dunnes Stores- EAT UD54/2012 did not accept the premise that:

                “The circumstances of the case were such that having the investigation and disciplinary hearings conducted by the same person was a flawed and unfair procedure”.

                While the Tribunal did accept that there were some cases where fair procedure required that both hearings are conducted by different personnel (Laffoy J. in Giblin v. Irish Life and Permanent PLC 2010 IEHC 36), this was not the case here. In this instance, the claimant had made an immediate admission to the wrongdoing and the facts of the alleged wrongdoing were not in dispute.

4.9          Similarly in the recent case of Agnes Maranan v. Beechfield Nursing Homes Limited- EAT UD961/2015, the Tribunal noted that while there were flaws in the disciplinary procedure (same officer used in both investigation and disciplinary), it determined that:

                “In this situation we find the claimant was not prejudiced by the flaw as there was agreement in relation to the issue between all parties. The only non-meeting of minds was in relation to the gravity of the situation”.

             The Respondent contends that the facts of these cases directly correlate with the present situation.

4.10        Breaches of confidentiality have long been found to be dismissible offences (ADJ- 1805, Debbie Forder v. AV Pound Company Ltd UD 927/2011).

4.11        In a Social Care Worker v. A Social Care Provider, it was found that “a trained and experienced social care worker would be well aware of the importance of data protection and confidentiality”. In common with the Complainant social care worker, an awareness of the importance of confidentiality is expected of an experienced physiotherapist who in this case was dealing with vulnerable patients daily.

4.12        In A Nurse v. A Hospital- ADJ-00008279, the WRC upheld the dismissal of a nurse who had compiled a personal logbook of patient information and then subsequently misplaced it in the hospital students’ room. The WRC when referring to medical data and its sensitivity stated:

                “In the medical profession, however, and in particular, in the role held by the complainant, information is extremely sensitive and compromising and the requirement for confidentiality is much higher than that which applies, for example, in financial services. It is my view that the complainant must have, or, should have known this. The compiling of the logbook is completely at odds with the standard of patient confidentiality required of her role, and it is my view that it could not have been regarded by her employer as anything other than extremely serious misconduct.  

                In addition to this the WRC noted that:

                “The action of the complainant demonstrates a failure on her part to treat patient information as the property of the patients. She also failed to consider that patients have a right to expect that information provided by them is treated with respect and not used for any purpose other than what they intend to be used for.”

4.13        The Respondent strongly asserts that the Complainant in this case too understood the grave consequences of leaving confidential company and patient files exposed. The Complainant had been furnished with the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapist’s Rules of Professional Conduct Incorporating Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Professional Behaviour following a previous incident.

4.14       In light of the above, the Respondent contends that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair in the circumstances.

5 Contribution

5.1          The Respondent contends that the actions of the Complainant contributed wholly to her dismissal. Accordingly, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant is not entitled to any redress under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015.   This is in accordance with the position taken by the Employment Appeals Tribunal on multiple occasions, including in Murray v. Meath County Council, UD 43/1978, where the Tribunal saw appropriate not to award any redress to the Complainant in light of his inappropriate actions.

Conclusion.

The Respondent strongly asserts that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed but was in fact fairly dismissed in line with Section 6(4)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015 following fair procedure.

The Complainant left a work database logged in on a PC in a securely locked (key coded) nursing station in a Nursing Home. A member of nursing staff observed same and immediately informed CEO of the Nursing Home Group (who was onsite at the time).

The CEO advised to log out of database immediately to which the staff member did. It was reported that no other staff witnessed any data from this computer. Following this a search history of this PC was completed by the Nursing Home for the 11 days that the Complainant had been attending the Nursing Home. Login sites, dates and times were recorded from 15th November 2018 to 24th January 2019 by their data controller. The CEO of the Nursing Home contacted the Respondent MD. The Respondent MD informed the Complainant that the incident was not reported to the Data Commissioner as no other staff saw any information and therefore there was not a breach in confidentiality regarding residents of the Nursing Home or any other nursing home but that they were investigating the matter as the Complainant’s private email was accessed by her on days that she attended the nursing home and other websites were accessed on this computer and they wanted to know if it was the Complainant who had done this.

The Respondent MD contacted the Complainant by email on 5th February 2019 at 18.57pm, he asked the Complainant to come to the office first thing the following morning at 9.15am before she had to start work on the opposite side of the city for a meeting.

At this meeting the Respondent MD informed the Complainant that a complaint had been received from a client. The Respondent MD also stated, “If it’s the worst-case scenario for our company itsonly 4% of our turnover”. The MD advised the Complainant he would keep her updated on proceedings and try not to worry about it.

The same evening, 5th February 2018 at 18.50pm the MD posted an email to all staff in the Respondent company regarding an update on GDPR policies. Email titled “More GDPR”. In this email the MD stated the following:

“While we have completed and almost everyone has signed the Data Protection Policy for Staff, we now need to complete the full company data protection. XXXXX was our Data Protection Officer and this was the next policy that she was due to complete.

The initial plan on this policy was to wait until J returns from maternity leave before finalising this document but due to the importance of data protection and the possible ramifications of breaching data protection guidelines and the upcoming further new regulations coming in at the end of March I have taken on the role of Acting Data Protection Officer until we officially appoint another one. If you are interested in this position, please include in your appraisal form.

The IBEC training which everyone will have completed by March will cover all aspects of data protection to an appropriate level, but we need to make sure that this is applied to all aspects of our day to day activities while working in (the Respondent Company) and ensure that everyone has complete and utter clarity on all aspects of data protection.

F has just sent out the new system to be used on our phones which you all must upload ASAP as our work phones will then be appropriately covered for all eventualities.

As I have strongly referenced last week our work phones are to be used as your primary form of communication, access to teamsite, the database and asana and everyone must ensure that all of these areas are accessible on your phone. If you do not or cannot get access to these online areas, you must contact your line manager immediately.

Since the new GDPR laws have come in we are no longer permitted to carry around any material with sensitive information (residents names) so we are now emailing our 12 week programmes to Nursing Homes to print out. However, there are homes in Leinster where we are also not allowed to email reports and therefore we must create and generate reports onsite in those homes.   We also have other homes in Munster that require us to email an exact overview of what we did minute and residents by resident before we leave the home.

Therefore, in certain circumstances access onsite to teamsite/database may be warranted.

While access to teamsite/FFL database onsite may be warranted these are also the locations where using PC’s and Laptops onsite we are probably at most risk to ensuring that we are adequately protecting data.   Therefore, I have started a draft of the “company data protection policy” outlining the main points of adequately protecting data when onsite as an attachment on this email.

This is not a completed version and in order for this to happen I need to get feedback from in relation to what we are currently accessing when online onsite. This in conjunction with upcoming training should ensure that we cover all bases.

While I am putting this document together I would ask all of you who may have been accessing any of documents not specifically related to the Nursing Home in question while onsite to refrain from doing so with immediate effect. I would also ask you to refer to the Confidentiality policy, the Email and Internet Use policy as there will be overlaps in guidelines.

This draft policy, the Complainant contends, was dated January 2019 but not released until 5th February. The Complainant further contends that the training referred to in the MD’s email, is not training she had availed of and this fact had been made known to management.

13th February 2019 at 17.11 pm

The Complainant received an email from the Managing Director informing her that he had met the client and now wanted to inform the Complainant of decisions made at that client meeting. This email stated the following:

1.       The first thing is that is has been decided that there is no reason to contact the data protection officer as a breach of sensitive data has not occurred.  

2.       The Client Group indicated that they do not want the Complainant to work at any of their Nursing Homes in the future.

3.       The client group have provided records of computer logins over an 11 day period that the Complainant was onsite dating back to November 2018. They had not saved records before that.

18th February 2019 at 10.44am

The Complainant received an email from the Managing Director informing her that she would have to attend an investigation meeting on 26th February 2019.

26th February 2019

Investigation meeting with MD and Ms FC (present as notetaker)

In this meeting the MD presented the Complainant with 40 additional pages of login details that he had received from the client Nursing Home. The MD informed the Complainant that the incident was not reported to the Data Commissioner as the CEO of the client Nursing Home reported that there was no indication that any other staff member had seen any sensitive data and therefore there was not a breach in confidentiality regarding residents of the client Nursing Home or any other Nursing Home. The MD stated that they were investigating the matter as the Complainant’s private email was accessed by her on days that she attended the Nursing Home and other websites were accessed on this computer. The MD stated that they would be going through each login and that the Complainant was to explain whether or not she had logged into those websites.

The MD voiced that he did not forward on the 40 additional sheets to the Complainant as there was “not much backing behind it” and when the Complainant asked why they were not forwarded on as he reported that he would do, the MD stated “I felt I was under no obligation to send any of it but I thought I’d send this one (15th November 2018) as there will be a lot of repetition”. The Complainant requested to take all these sheets that she had just been presented with home to digest them and go through them as it was her first time seeing them, but the MD’s exact response was “No, no this is the time”. The Complainant admitted in the meeting to logging onto her personal email account on a number of occasions. She explained to the MD that this was due to the Respondent’s secretary requesting CORU information and registration from her and that it still had not been finalised. Other websites were also accessed in an attempt to gain information and documentation required by CORU for registration.

The MD questioned the Complainant about other websites that were accessed on certain dates from the computer. The Complainant denied such logins.

The MD questioned if I saw fault in doing this? I explained to the MD that throughout the working day within the Nursing Home many residents that have been requested by nursing staff to be reviewed by the physio may not be ready at the time. Such residents may still be in bed, having breakfast, waiting on showers, waiting for medication, may have other appointments with healthcare practitioners, may have relatives present, may not agree to physio, may be unwell, could be attending the onsite hairdresser etc. The Complainant informed the MD that on such incidents she would access the computer to complete other work duties while waiting on residents to be ready. She advised that it was her belief that she was being productive with her time as a physio and she did not want to be standing or walking around waiting on residents. This had happened on a number of occasions while in the Nursing Home and nursing staff had been made aware of this. She replied to The MD’s original question stating all of the above and also voiced that “obviously there was a problem with this as the Nursing Home had made a complaint to you”.

The MD questioned that on occasion that the Complainant had not physically logged out of the database and questioned why. The Complainant was baffled by this at the time as she was always conscious that the database was logged out of. The MD presented her with a hardcopy of an email from the Respondent’s data technician stating that if the database is inactive for 20 minutes there is an automatic logout by the database itself for security reasons. If the Complainant had the database open while note taking, she would always sit at the computer where all residents’ folders were kept as this is the only area to complete notes. Should staff request to use the computer the Complainant would immediately log off. If staff did not request it she would sit at the computer note taking and this could take up to 40 minutes to complete and therefore this is the only explanation that she can think of that she did not physically log out, that it was already logged out automatically by the system itself after 20 minutes.

28th February 2019 at 17.32pm

The Complainant received an email inviting her to attend a disciplinary hearing on 6th March 2019.

Disciplinary meeting went ahead on 6th March 2019. In attendance was The MD and Ms FC who was taking minutes of the meeting.  

The MD initiated the meeting stating:

“There’s one thing and that’s in relation to our database entries, I only got a reply back from the database individual last night so basically that’s his answer there. This is from the database individual that sets up and is behind the Respondent’s database”. The MD handed the Complainant a hard copy of an email which was sent to him.   This email explained that inactivity of the database would automatically cause the database to log out for security purposes around 20 minutes.

The MD continued on saying “compromising the relationship of a company client and unauthorised use of equipment”. He then asked me to “give your definition of what you would consider best practice client customer relationship or good client customer relationship”.

The Complainant answered the question to the best of her knowledge but found this very uncomfortable and belittling.

The MD then continued the meeting stating, “Breaches of trust with a client, can you understand how these alleged incidents could breach our client’s trust”?

The Complainant replied “Yes, but as I explained in my previous meeting, that I was waiting around for service users to treat and while I was there I was doing different bits and pieces of work on the computer”.

The MD proceeded to question the Complainant on the company’s internet and email policy.

The MD replied “in relation to the use of the client’s PC where there was alleged access to personal emails or websites not related to the business do you wish to add any comments or mitigatingfactorsthat you didn’t present at the last meeting. Point 1 internet rules”.

Again, the Complainant repeated the above and also stated that she was attempting to setup and finalise CORU registration details and needed personal details to do so.

The MD then read the following statement “System user accepts to be responsible for unethical use of companies systems to protect company’s information and to exercise prudent judgement. Misuse of the company’s policy may result in termination of contract”.

The MD asked the Complainant if she had anything to add. She replied “No, as I said when I accessed my personal email on yahoo I was attempting to set up and basically finalise my CORU registration”.

The MD’s next statement was “On the staff data protection policy, you reviewed and signed this document do you wish to add anything to the particular policy and the alleged incidents?”.

The Complainant said to the MD that “it says on the letter that I have breached this, I would like to know where if you could highlight that for me”.

The MD responded “alleged, point H it’s still alleged at this point.   Data users should ensure that they do not disclose information to passers-by and log off”.

In relation to the point on breaching confidentiality, the Complainant asked the MD what point she allegedly breached. His answer was “a lot of it”. The Complainant asked if he could pinpoint it so she could highlight it for my own records. The MD replied “patency, pricing, the marketing undisclosed strategies, documents and processes. Employees should make sure they only view such information on secure devices.   Confidentiality measures to ensure confidential information is well protected”. The Complainant asked the MD if she allegedly breached the 4 points which were printed under this. The MD said, “no not the 4”, they are just examples. She asked if it was only this specific point so and the MD’s reply was “1”.

Following this exchange, the Complainant explained to the MD “as you can clearly see from the logins, all I logged into was my emails, I did not log into patency, pricing, marketing, formulas, undisclosed strategies, documents and processes or new technologies”. The MD did not respond to this. Instead he stayed silent for approximately one minute. The Complainant also stated to the MD “as for the point of logging into my emails on secured devices, as you are aware the computer that I logged onto requires passwords to login and is situated in a secure nursing station where staff can only obtain access with a punch key code on the door”. The MD again stayed silent for approximately two minutes and did not respond to this.

The MD then voiced “in your contract on confidentiality there is just a point 1B regarding the confidentiality clause, have you anything else to add”?

The Complainant replied “just in relation to again (nursing home named) stating that they do not want me working in any of their homes in the future, was that a written statement or verbal? Can I have access to this?”.

The MD said, “I’ve replied to you already”.

The Complainant again questioned “will I be able to view this?”

The Complainant then asked the MD about the statement on the letter stating, “unauthorised use of a client’s equipment”. The Complainant articulated to the MD that no one had ever approached her regarding the use of the PC and that she couldn’t see this statement in any of our policies. The MD then cut her off abruptly stating “it’s not in any of our policies”. The Complainant again read the line out loud from the disciplinary letter which contained the following “unauthorised use of a client’s equipment”, she stated “I am being questioned about this and yet there are no policies in place to back up this alleged breach of conduct”.   Again, there was no answer.

The MD then said that he would review all this information take everything into consideration and have a written response as early as he could tomorrow. The Complainant then asked if the response would be through email, the MD replied, “yeah yeah”.

The following day 7th March 2019, the Complainant was asked to attend a meeting with the MD, she attended as requested and was handed a letter by the MD and asked to read the letter there and then. The letter stated that with immediate effect the Complainant was dismissed from the Company under “Gross Misconduct”. The MD requested that she leave her phone, her bag and USB key with him.

Based on advice received the Complainant did not request an internal appeal in relation to her dismissal.

The facts leading to the dismissal as presented by the Respondent and the Complainant are very similar, there is no need to provide a lengthy summary of facts when there is little or no area of disagreement.

My function as Adjudication Officer, is therefore to look at the process. Representative for the Respondent has mentioned the Employment Appeals Tribunal Case of Looney & Co Ltd v Looney (UD 843/1984) in which the EAT stated:

‘It is not for the EAT to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant nor is it for the EAT to indicate or consider whether we in the employer’s position would have acted as it did in its investigation or concluded as it did in its investigation or concluded as it did or decided as it did, as to do so would be to substitute our own mind and decisions for that of the employer. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in his position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s actions and decision are to be judged.’

The test of reasonableness was set out in Noritake (Irl) Ltd v Kenna (UD 88/1983), namely:

1.       Did the company believe that the employee mis-conducted himself as alleged: If so?

2.       Did the company have reasonable grounds to sustain that belief? If so,

3.       Was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the alleged misconduct?

In this instant case the Respondent has followed a process and at each step reminded the Complainant that she could be accompanied at the meetings by a colleague.

In relation to points 1 and 2 shown above the Respondent does believe that the employee mis-conducted herself and this fact is not challenged by the Complainant. The Respondent’s belief is sustained by the information provided by the Respondent’s client.

Was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the misconduct? One has to look at the actual misconduct that occurred. The Respondent contends that the complainant’s conduct resulted in an irreparable breach of trust and confidence in the employment relationship. The Respondent cites the EAT case of Moore -v- Knox Hotel and Resort Limited UD 27 /2001 in this regard and quotes:

“[The claimant’s actions] destroyed the respondent’s trust and confidence in the claimant and rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible, thereby justifying her summary dismissal”

The Complainant was summarily dismissed, she did not appeal the dismissal. In case ADJ 0000381 the Adjudication Officer stated:

‘An appeal is not just an afterthought or a procedure that must be completed as a matter of course. It is a very important part of the disciplinary process and the greater the sanction that has been imposed the greater its importance. An appeal allows a dismissed employee the last chance to make their case, highlight any mitigating factors and seek protection for faulty procedures or disproportionality of sanction’

The Complainant’s decision not to appeal her dismissal was a significant error on her part.

I note that the policies produced at the hearing of the complaint are all dated April 2018. The Complainant commenced employment in 2016. This raises the question of what policies, if any, were issued to her on the commencement of her employment.

I have given this matter much consideration and now decide that on the balance of probabilities the decision to dismissal the Complainant was not unfair and therefore the complainant as presented is not well founded.

I have given this matter much consideration and now decide that on the balance of probabilities the decision to dismissal the Complainant was not unfair and therefore the complainant as presented is not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.