Friend downloaded client details before setting up own firm

The owner of a property management company fired his friend after it emerged the latter had downloaded the company’s database before setting up his own company.

James O’Connor told the Employment Appeals Tribunal he had done so to protect his own business as Gordon Anderson had downloaded the material containing details of 2,900 clients, in order he could hit the ground running when setting up business for himself.

Mr O’Connor, managing director of OCPM Property Consultants of Glasnevin, Dublin, was defending an unfair dismissal action taken by Mr Anderson following his dismissal in April 2013.

Evidence was heard in the case on dates late last year and in April last. The tribunal has just published its findings.

Mr O’Connor described Gordon Anderson as a personal friend to whom he had given a job, and had been a very good employee for about five years.

However, he became concerned when Mr Anderson became interested in company accounts and started to do a lot of work outside normal working hours.

He was not comfortable with files going off-site and the last straw was when Mr Anderson downloaded the company’s software, containing details of 2,900 clients.

He told the Tribunal Mr Anderson had asked for external access to the database in case he needed it for emergencies, but he told him the database was not to be used or accessed off-site.

Mr Anderson had also solicited work from a caretaker at a property site, despite being instructed the caretaker should not be used and he had dismissed him summarily “without pause for compliance with procedures”.

When asked if he could not have issued a final written warning instead, Mr O’Connor told the tribunal “fair play went out the window, I had no time for niceties”. He insisted that he was protecting his business.

Two other witnesses gave evidence that company information was not to be taken off the premises and said any information needed out of hours was already available.

Mr Anderson told the tribunal he was never told by Mr O’Connor not to remove files from the office. He was not offered extra money for doing extra work out of hours. He did not expect it as he did it for the betterment of the company.

The managing director had appreciated this, he said, and frequently thanked him. He admitted engaging a particular caretaker despite being asked not to do so.

He said he had downloaded the information to have access to the owners’ contact details if, for example, a tap was left on in a property. He had put it on to a memory stick but was unable to access it. The information was of no commercial value to him and, at the time, did not think about setting up his own business.

He insisted there was nothing sensitive in the files and he had no intention to use the files to poach clients away from OCPM.

The tribunal said it was “a case where both sides lose”. Notwithstanding Mr O’Connor’s anger and irritation, fair and proper procedures had been neglected. “This serious flaw balances out the claimant’s input was highly significant”, it said.

The tribunal found the termination was unfair, but awarded Mr Anderson €0 (a zero amount) as compensation.