DECISION: A former employee of Dublin-based firm AMT-Sybex Software, who was dismissed shortly after making claims of harassment and bullying against her supervisor, has been awarded €20,000 by an employment appeals tribunal.

AMT-Sybex Software, which develops imaging technologies, was found to have unfairly dismissed Ms Paula O'Sullivan, of Summerhill, Co Meath, and failed to comply with any reasonable grievances procedures.

After considering evidence at a hearing in February, the tribunal found the company had not adhered to required procedures under the terms of the Unfair Dismissal Acts.

The tribunal also criticised the firm's failure to inquire into any employment and disciplinary procedures whatsoever, according to its decision notice.

At this hearing, Ms O'Sullivan said that when she had made allegations of bullying and harassment against her immediate supervisor she was told to put these in writing. Two weeks later she was dismissed by the firm, hours after receiving a copy of its grievances procedures.

At a meeting with AMT-Sybex Software's group finance director, Ms O'Sullivan was told that her working relationship with her immediate supervisor had broken down and he had decided to dismiss her.

The company secretary at AMT-Sybex Software told the tribunal that Ms O'Sullivan had not wanted company officials to speak to any witnesses in relation to the issue.

He said the claimant's supervisor had denied all the allegations put to him and he had not given a copy of the firm's grievances procedures to Ms O'Sullivan until the morning of her dismissal.

The group finance director told the tribunal that their investigations into the allegations were hampered because the claimant had told them not to speak to any witnesses.

He said he had decided to dismiss the claimant because the working relationship between Ms O'Sullivan and her supervisor had irretrievably broken down.

He said as a business decision the supervisor had the abilities to perform all the jobs in the section, while the claimant had not.

Under cross-examination he said that he could have taken more time to reflect prior to making the decision to dismiss, but did so as a business decision. He also stated that he did not give the grievances procedures to the claimant.