The claimant in this case worked for the respondent credit union from 2005. In June 2011 the claimant was presented with a copy of the respondent’s Bullying and Harassment policy which was set on her desk. Around this time the claimant was made aware that an unspecified allegation of bullying had been made against her. However, no allegations were ever put to her.

Due to the stress of the situation the claimant went off on certified sick leave for a time. None of the various meetings that took place had ever addressed the allegations of bullying and harassment against her or the claimant’s grievances in relation to how she was being treated. Then in “the starkest and baldest of terms”, on the 18th of September, the claimant was told to leave her place of employment.

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.

The minority opinion found that the claimant was entitled to redress and that the appropriate remedy was compensation rather than re-instatement: "In assessing the appropriate level of compensation in his case the minority has regard to the loss suffered by the claimant and her efforts to mitigate her loss. In circumstances, where the claimant did not contribute in any way to her dismissal, the minority of the Tribunal measures compensation in the sum of €24,500.00."

However, the final determination and majority view was that re-instatement was the appropriate remedy due to the following:

(a) The claimant did not contribute in any way to her dismissal.
(b) No procedures were adopted.
(c) The dismissal was wholly and substantially unfair.
(d) The claimant's preferred option is for re-instatement.

Read the full case report here:
http://bit.ly/1vuBSsb