Lionbridge Case: Firm admits it didn't bother to check facts
Stop unfair dismissal and discrimination!
Today in Warsaw labour court was second part of case against Lionbridge company, which unfairly dismissed unionist Jakub G. in february this year. Firm claims that Jakub took and published the company's secrets on this portal in January short time after Jakub announced to them that the workers made a trade union in Polish office of that firm.
Case started with judge's recommendation to make a compromise and agree the case. Jakub did not agree to firm's proposition. He states that the arguments firm made to fire him aren't true at all and demands to go back to work.
Two witnesses spoke in court today. L. made testimony about where information for the article came from on the internet. She stated that she gave all evidence that this information was public to the Lionbridge firm and to the court. Firm claims that information about income of Lionbridge is not public and must be stolen. L. states it is available information and told where it is from. Woman from Lionbridge human resources made testimony, too. Jakub's side asked if Lionbridge company read the explanation that was given to the firm with proofs of publications of information on the internet. These proofs were given to them one day after first accusations to Jakub. Lionbridge company said that they did not even look at these proofs because they considered it not important!!!
It means that firm made a wrong accusation and when worker tried to explain the situation, they didn't check or try to prove or see if this worker was innocent or guilty - they just fired him. So workers of Lionbridge can now see that company doesn't care what your explanation is, they fire people without proofs and do not let the employees to defend.
Lionbridge firm also claims Jakub sent the confidential information to his private mail box. As a "proof" they give titles of a couple emails Jakub sent to his own email. For example, one email he said is not the company business, just article from newspaper. Lawyers asked what company claims is subject in these emails. Company said it is not the policy to read the emails! It is very strange indeed. Company Lionbridge admitted in the court they didn't read the emails either, but they state they are sure they contain confidential informations! How are they "sure"? They don't say it. They only say it is impossible that another person (L.) can know how much Lionbridge firm makes because only employees of Lionbridge could know that. Jakub asked who of employees did company give that information. Firm said only a few managers and such types of people got this information. Lionbridge did not say Jakub was one of the people who got this information. L. brought to court the newspaper from this week with the information about Lionbridge income.
In end, Lionbridge still gave no proof that the reason they gave for dismissal of Jakub was true. Human resources woman tried to make scare about Jakub and his political ideas but this was not reason of dismissal and the discrimination of people on political basis is not legimitate ground for dismissal.
Case will continue in october.