This case involved a claim that the complainant had been unfairly dismissed. The dismissal had been initiated after the respondent had been advised that the appellant had a USB key with company information on it. The general manager and the HR manager decided to raise the matter with the appellant and he confirmed that he did have a USB key. He handed over the USB key and it was inserted into a laptop. It was then discovered that it contained highly confidential company information and company data from the management information system. The appellant was then suspended on full pay due to the potential serious breach of the respondent's e-mail and security policy. He was put on notice that the allegation could amount to gross misconduct and could potentially result in his dismissal.

The respondent's IT providers also reviewed the appellant's company email account and discovered that mails had been sent from his company email address to his personal gmail account. Following an investigation meeting and disciplinary meeting the appellant was dismissed for gross misconduct as his actions were a serious breach of the respondent's internet, email and security policy. 

The Court found that the reason proffered by the complainant for mailing the comprehensive range of data to his personal email account lacked credibility. The Court stated that it would not substitute its view for that of the respondent and instead determined whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer in the same circumstances. The Court noted that the respondent had a range of policies dealing comprehensively with internet and email security. The Court was satisfied that the complainant had breached these policies and that the respondent regarded such breaches as extremely serious. The Court found that the decision to dismiss the complainant, following the investigation and disciplinary process, was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer. Accordingly, the appeal failed.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/June/UDD1839.html