The claimant was employed in a sales position within the respondent company. The claimant had received a written warning for the use of her mobile phone in the workplace and also for her failure to follow company policy in respect of sales procedures.

Evidence was produced that the claimant had viewed and printed emails from a computer. These emails belonged to the private work email of the claimant’s line manager. Evidence was adduced and presented to the Tribunal which demonstrated that approximately 75 emails were viewed and printed in a 6.5 minute period. The company was of the view that this action by the claimant amounted to an erosion of trust. The claimant was subsequently dismissed following an investigation and disciplinary process. On appeal, the decision to dismiss was upheld.

The claimant gave evidence that she was told to use the computer in question. She noted that when the screensaver disappeared the subject material showed her name. The claimant said she viewed the email and the attachments and printed these repeatedly due her anger and frustration at the attachments and the lies that these contained. The claimant recognised that printing of the emails was wrong and whilst she agreed that she should have been subject to disciplinary sanction, she was of the view that the decision to dismiss her was excessive or disproportionate.

The tribunal noted how the “improper use of the email and internet is a major issue in many companies today.” The tribunal attached great importance to the fact that the claimant admitted from the outset that she had viewed and printed emails and the tribunal was of the belief that this was a major factor to consider in regards to proportionality. The tribunal was not convinced by the respondent’s argument of “erosion of trust”; on this basis the tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the claimant was disproportionate.

Whilst it reached this conclusion, the tribunal was of the opinion that the actions of the claimant were wrong and contributed to her dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal ordered that the claimant receive €15,000.00 by way of compensation.

To read the full case review:
http://bit.ly/10BLt2k