This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that proper procedures are followed when conducting an investigation that may lead to dismissal or suspension.

The respondent in this case held that the claimant had compromised the security of the national collection of art by a gross breach. The respondent claimed that the claimant had helped a former employee to prepare a submission to the Rights Commissioner Service. The respondent held that this breach was conducted by email internally and contained breaches of "providing security sensitive information about his place of work". The respondent further noted how the emails that were sent from the claimant were conducted on a "non-secure computer system, mentioned people by name in a derogatory manner and was a total betrayal of faith/trust and relationships." 

The respondent conducted an investigation over a number of days with the aid of an external legal representative, however in the process of this investigation it was found that the authorship of the emails by the claimant was undeniable and therefore the respondent had no option but to suspend and later dismiss the claimant. 

The claimant on the other hand argued that while he met with his former colleague he did not breach any security or provide any emails which contained sensitive information. Rather his former colleague approached him as he was aware that the claimant was an active trade union representative and the former employee required assistance in preparing the submission. 

The claimant did not engage in the disciplinary process as he believed that the procedure being followed was inconsistent and made up as they went along. In particular, the claimant noted how the disciplinary process was conducted by someone who wasn't his line manager and this he believed was "contrary to everything he knew". The claimant argued that he was ignorant of the effect that the emails could have had upon his employer and recognised his mistake. However he did note that what he did he believed was not wrong as he was helping someone and this was in line with his "family's tradition". The claimant sought re-instatement as his preferred remedy. 

The tribunal held that upon looking at the evidence the "respondent was defective in the procedures used or adopted to terminate the claimant's employment." The tribunal held that compensation was a more appropriate remedy than re-instatement. In that regard the tribunal awarded the claimant €25,000, taking into consideration how he had contributed to his dismissal with his actions. 

Read the full decision: http://bit.ly/VJeTcn