A woman has secured a High Court injunction preventing her employer from terminating her position for alleged gross misconduct.
The woman claims she had purportedly been fired on grounds of alleged gross misconduct after she turned up at her boss's home and gave her a 28-page letter outlining grievances regarding her boss' alleged behaviour.
The woman does not accept a finding that handing her allegedly "volatile and unpredictable" boss the letter amounted to gross misconduct.
She claims that any steps to dismiss her from her job have been done in a breach of fair procedures.
She sought an injunction restraining her employer, the boss whom she has worked with for many years, from dismissing her.
The injunction was opposed by her employer, who denied that the steps taken in a disciplinary process amount to a breach of fair procedures.
The employer also said that no injunction should be granted as the working relationship between the parties had been "irretrievably tainted" due to a lack of mutual trust between the parties.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said he was satisfied to grant the order as he was satisfied that a strong case likely to succeed had been made out by the plaintiff that her employer had failed to follow a disciplinary procedure that the defendant was bound to comply.
The judge added that he was further satisfied that the employer's decision to dismiss the employee and the appeals procedure afforded were also in breach of fair procedures.
The judge also said that it would be premature to say that damages in this case would be an adequate remedy, and that the least risk of injustice warranted the court granting a limited injunction.
Limited order
The judge said he was granting a limited order requiring the defendant firm to pay the plaintiff's salary, and any bonuses, pending the outcome of the full hearing of the dispute.
The defendant was also restrained from taking any further steps in a disciplinary procedure commenced by the employer against the plaintiff.
The judge said she should be paid once she carries out any reasonable that the defendant asks her to do. The defendant is not required to assign the plaintiff any duties, the judge added.
The defendant may suspend the plaintiff pending the final outcome of the proceedings, the judge said, but only if she continues to pay her salary until then.
The parties cannot be identified following an order made earlier in the proceeding by Ms Justice Eileen Roberts.
Ms Justice Roberts granted an order under section 27 of the 2008 Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, forbids the media from disclosing details including the profession of those involved.
That order was sought by the head of the defendant company represented by Barney Quirke SC who had argued that identifying her as someone with a medical condition would cause her undue stress.
The plaintiff opposed the order and argued that the proceedings should be fully held in public.
The plaintiff, represented by Lorna Lynch SC, claims there were issues with how the defendant company was run, including that she never received an employment contract and there was no employee handbook or company policies in place until the initiation of the disciplinary process.
There was no human resources or grievance procedure through which to ventilate any of the issues, she claims.
She also claimed her boss could be “unpredictable and at times volatile” and had many outbursts in the office.
Burnout
The plaintiff says these issues took a toll on her health and prior to the incidents at the centre of the action she was on fully paid sick leave due to “burnout”.
The plaintiff claims that after she returned to work, she received a call from her employer that so upset her that she left the office and was again certified unfit to work.
She wrote down her grievances in a letter that she hand-delivered to the boss’s home on an evening in June 2022.
She accepts this was “harsh and to the point”, containing some very personal information, but it was constructive and intended to be private.
Arising out of the letter the plaintiff claims she was suspended pending the outcome of a disciplinary investigation into her alleged conduct by a HR company hired by her employer.
An investigator found the employee acted in an “inappropriate and unacceptable manner” and her actions created a “threatening and intimidating experience” for the boss.
The plaintiff says she does not accept these findings or that her conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Her employer rejected her claims and denies that fair procedures were breached as alleged.
In seeking to have the injunction applications dismissed, the defendant also argued that the matter should be considered by the Workplace Relations Commission and not the High Court.
