A woman is asking the High Court to prevent her employer from terminating her position after she hand-delivered a letter of complaint to the home of her boss, with whom she has worked for two decades.
On Monday, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts granted an order, requested by the head of the defendant company, prohibiting the publication of anything that would identify the parties.
Her order, made under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2008, forbids disclosing the profession of those involved.
The boss of the defendant firm, represented by Barney Quirke SC, had submitted that identifying her as someone with a medical condition would cause her undue stress.
The 28-page letter delivered to the boss contained references to her medical condition, and this issue was a key part of the case, he submitted. He also told the court the action should have been brought before the Workplace Relations Commission rather than the High Court.
The plaintiff’s claims are denied.
The plaintiff, represented by Lorna Lynch SC, had opposed the order, arguing the case should proceed in public. She would have consented to an order that identified the parties but prevented the media from referencing the boss’s medical condition.
The plaintiff alleges in a sworn statement that the firm’s head could be “unpredictable and at times volatile” and had many outbursts in the office.
The plaintiff 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 supervisor, human resources function or grievance procedure through which to ventilate any of the issues, she claims.
The plaintiff says these issues took a toll on her health and, early last year, she took six weeks of fully-paid sick leave after being advised by her doctor she was suffering from “burnout”.
Later, the plaintiff alleges, the head of the firm sent a memo to the office team complaining about staff contacting her while she was working from home. The boss often became annoyed when staff failed to contact her with updates about projects, but they would be reprimanded if they interrupted her work, the plaintiff claims.
After returning from sick leave, the plaintiff says the boss was screaming and at times crying during a phone call with the plaintiff. During this call she allegedly accused staff of bullying her and having “no respect”.
When the plaintiff asked to meet to discuss the memo, she alleges, the woman said: “I will do what the bloody hell I want. I’ll talk to my staff however I want. Remember I am the boss. I pay your wages. You all need to cop on.”
The plaintiff says she was so upset and disgusted by the call that she left the office that afternoon and was again certified unfit to work by her doctor.
She says she requested to meet the boss, to which she received a response saying this would be inappropriate.
She wrote down her grievances in a letter that she hand-delivered to the boss’s home on an evening last June. The plaintiff claims this was “harsh and to the point”, containing some very personal information, but it was constructive and intended to be private.
She says the boss’s secretary then wrote to her about her “recent behaviour”, including calling unannounced to the house, saying it raises “very serious confidentiality issues”. It was decided the plaintiff should remain off work pending a medical assessment.
She says the firm engaged a human resources company and she was later formally suspended pending the outcome of a disciplinary investigation into her conduct in turning up at the boss’s house.
An investigator found the employee acted in an “inappropriate and unacceptable manner” in arriving unannounced at the boss’s home with a letter containing “inappropriate and unacceptable” matters, language and tone.
The employee’s actions created a “threatening and intimidating experience” for the boss, the investigator found.
The plaintiff says she does not accept these findings or that her conduct amounted to gross misconduct. She alleges she was advised the disciplinary process was fundamentally unfair and her appeal was to be heard by the main witness against her.
She is seeking an injunction that would restrain the firm from terminating her employment until the issues have been determined by the courts.
The claims are denied.
