An employee who was locked out of her computer over lunch and told to vacate her place of work within 10 minutes has been awarded €94,000 by an Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Donna Frawley was one of 12 employees dismissed by Lionbridge International, an Irish subsidiary of global language services provider Lionbridge Technologies, on 8th November 2013.
The former project manager had been working for the Dún Laoghaire-based firm for 18 years before she was summoned to a management meeting on the aforementioned date and told her employment would be terminated with immediate effect.
According to the case background, Ms Frawley was given no prior indication that her job was at risk, and there were “no historical difficulties of any kind” during her time with Lionbridge.
She was offered a “severance agreement” at the meeting provided she signed away her right to claim redundancy under unfair dismissal legislation, but chose not to accept the package.
Ms Frawley later questioned the sum being offered, which amounted to less than her statutory entitlement for redundancy payment, and was told “the company is not going down the redundancy route on this occasion”.
The tribunal heard that within a month of her dismissal, Ms Frawley’s position was advertised as part of a recruitment process for a 12-month contract. It was added that she has only managed to secure work for lower remuneration on a contract basis following her release from Lionbridge.
Ms Frawley’s former employer had conceded that she was unfairly dismissed and chose not to send representation to a hearing on January 29th.
In its determination, the tribunal judges found she was “dismissed without any procedure whatsoever let alone any fair procedure”, adding that Lionbridge “made a crude economic decision” in terminating Ms Frawley’s employment “without any regard for the claimant herself”.
It continued: “This appears to have been motivated by a wish to replace the permanent employment of the claimant with an impermanent position.”
The judgement concluded that €94,000 constituted an “appropriate remedy” given the details of the case.
