The High Court has rejected an employee’s appeal against a Labour Court decision that her dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, finding no error of law in the Labour Court’s approach.
The employee, identified in the judgment as AK, had challenged the Labour Court’s decision of 5 March 2020, which overturned a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) finding that her dismissal was unfair. The High Court extended time for her appeal, despite it being lodged outside the 21-day period, and overlooked other procedural shortcomings. It then considered the grounds she had raised.
The dispute followed complaints by a co-worker, identified as Mr A. In 2016, the employer upheld a complaint that AK had approached him in ways that made him uncomfortable, but did not recommend disciplinary action. AK later complained about Mr A; that complaint was found to have no basis. After she sent emails to Mr A and a colleague in May and June 2017, Mr A made a further complaint. The employer found the emails inappropriate and upheld the complaint of bullying and harassment. Following a disciplinary process, it dismissed AK for gross misconduct. Her internal appeal was rejected.
The WRC found the dismissal unfair and awarded AK €37,500 in compensation. It considered the emails inappropriate but said the employer had not adequately considered their context and the effect of the investigations on her. The Labour Court later allowed the employer’s appeal and overturned the WRC decision.
In the High Court, AK argued that her conduct did not amount to bullying and harassment, that the earlier sexual harassment complaint against her had been wrongly upheld, and that the employer had victimised her. The court said the earlier complaint decision was not itself under appeal. It also declined to consider victimisation, which had not been raised before the WRC or Labour Court.
The judge said the High Court’s role was limited to deciding whether the Labour Court had made an error of law; it was not deciding the dismissal dispute afresh. The judge accepted that AK had not intended to cause harm and had sent the emails in a misguided attempt to resolve matters. However, the emails could reasonably be regarded as undermining the recipient’s dignity at work, and the court considered them part of a wider pattern of conduct.
The court concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. It rejected the appeal and upheld the Labour Court decision. The High Court did not restore the WRC award.