A LAWYER with a leading finance firm who made bullying complaints against senior managers has secured a High Court order restraining her dismissal.
Lorraine Morris has "no clue" why she was dismissed by GE Financial Markets, her lawyer Richard Kean SC told Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley. The procedure leading to her dismissal was unfair and flawed, he added.
The judge granted interim orders to May 29 restraining the company from dismissing mother-of-one Ms Morris, of Sutton, north Dublin, who is suing the firm, of Ship Street Great, Dublin 8, over a decision made last Monday, dismissing her with three months' paid notice.
Ms Morris joined the company in September 2010 on the basis that she was being offered a secure, permanent and pensionable position.
Around July last year, she made a formal complaint under the firm's anti-bullying policy, alleging she was subject by various named individuals to a campaign of bullying.
Those individuals included Chinmay Trivedi, general manager of the defendant, and GE Corporate Treasury employees Renuka Gupta, Valerie Nelson and Peter Cooke.
The alleged campaign was motivated by her decision to distribute the company's anti-bullying policy to its leadership team, she said. She also said an appraisal of her performance was unfair and a deliberate attempt to demean her.
As a result, Ms Morris said she was in June 2012 certified unfit for work due to stress.
She was told her complaint would be investigated and she was not required to attend the office during the investigation.
Ms Morris alleged the investigation was flawed and unfair, and she was not given various materials sought by her for the purposes of the investigation.
Her assistant's employment was terminated last September and her post was opened before being forwarded. She was told her pay was to cease in Christmas week 2012, she said.
She believed final findings of the investigation were issued in late January which dismissed her grievances, and her appeal was also rejected.
Despite her complete dissatisfaction with the manner and outcome of the investigation and appeal process, she had determined to continue to engage with a view to returning to work, she said.
However, without any forewarning, she had last Monday received by email and courier a letter purporting to terminate her employment contract with immediate effect.