G Holland Ltd T/A Holland TCS (Represented by Barror & Company Solicitors) v Ms Laura Dennison (Represented by Clarke Jeffers Solicitors)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2020] 2 JIEC 2809 |
| Docket Number | FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.UDD2017 ADJ-00021743 CA-00028463-001 |
| Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Labour Court (Ireland) |
FULL RECOMMENDATION
UD/19/208
DETERMINATION NO.UDD2017
ADJ-00021743 CA-00028463-001
Labour Court
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr Hall
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015
1. Appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No ADJ-00021743 CA-00028463-001.
2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 21 October 2019 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 February 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:
This is an appeal by G Holland Limited T/A Holland TCS against the decision of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00021743, CA-00028463-001 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 (the Acts) in a claim of constructive dismissal by Ms Laura Dennison. The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant was constructively dismissed and awarded her the sum of €15,000 in compensation.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designations as they had at first instance. Hence Ms Laura Dennison will be referred to as “the Complainant” and G Holland Limited T/A Holland TCS will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Sales Manager on 7th June 2016. The Complainant tendered her resignation on 23rd October 2018 which took effect on 20th November 2018. The Complainant submitted a claim of constructive dismissal under the Acts to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th May 2019.
The Respondent is involved in selling and providing safety courses to companies in the private and public sectors, including the construction sector and for public contracts awarded subsequent to successful tender.
The Complainant was employed as from 7th June 2016 to the date of her termination of employment on or about 20th November 2018 as a Sales Manager with the Respondent.
The Complainant was represented by Mr Donnchadh Morgan, B.L., instructed by Clarke Jeffers & Co. Solicitors. Mr Morgan submitted that the Adjudication Officer's findings were correct and ought to be upheld. He contended that the Respondent had constructively dismissed the Complainant as she had to leave her employment due to the conduct of her employer and/ or others at her workplace.
The Complainant commenced employment as Sales Manager having been approached by Mr George Holland to work for him. It was an express term of her contract that the company would meet or exceed a sales target of €1,250,00.00 in the first year. As part of the employment package, it was agreed that a car would be supplied for her use six months into her role.
Mr Morgan maintained that the Respondent was constantly shifting ground beneath the Complainant as Mr Holland's refused to be tied down to detail and to commitments from the very beginning of her employment with the Respondent. He said that as early as October 2016, the arrangement with regard the provision of a car to the Complainant was the subject of significant disagreement and confusion. Mr Holland wanted her to accept as a loan payment the sum of €9,500 which was the deposit on the car, which she would repay, interest free, over a period of 36 months. Despite the Complainant disagreeing with this arrangement, she eventually acquiesced to the Respondent's insistence and she signed the document as requested by Mr Holland on 24th January 2017. The agreement outlined the repayment plan for the loan and stated that fuel, insurance, and tax would be paid for by the Respondent. Mr Morgan said that the Respondent indicated that in the event that the Complainant was with the company in three years' time, the ‘balloon payment’ would be paid by it at the conclusion of the loan period.
On 6th June 2017, at a meeting with Mr Holland the Complainant was informed that the company had failed to reach the said sales targets for that financial year, as the achieved figure was €1,104,831. She was presented with two options: redundancy or demotion. The proposed demotion would see the Complainant working as Sales Executive with personal targets, a wage cut of €10,000 per annum, but with €10,000 in bonuses should targets be achieved (to be based on achieving 65% of the company's Gross Margin). This period would continue for a period of 24 months at which time it was proposed that she would return to her original position. During the meeting, Mr Holland emphasised that this demotion was based solely on the issue of figures. The Complainant agreed to the demotion, on the basis that she would not perform the managerial tasks she had carried out to date. It was agreed that her day to day duties, minus the managerial tasks, would be listed and her holiday leave allocation would be increased.
Mr Morgan said that meetings to confirm her new title and tasks were agreed but were postponed, ignored or simply failed to take place and the Complainant continued performing her former role including the management responsibilities which she had been told would be removed. He said that her demotion was not known to staff and that there was no real material change in role before or after 7th June 2017.
On or around this time, the Complainant's access to the company's accounting package, SAGE, had been removed, and she was unable to determine if 65% of the Company's Gross Margin had been achieved for the purpose of identifying if bonuses would be awarded. The Complainant requested access be restored on numerous occasions. Mr Morgan said that she was told by Mr Holland to calculate this manually if she wanted to know.
On or about 2nd October 2017, the Complainant met with Mr Holland, he made positive references to her work, as sales figures had increased. Mr Holland denied that she was being “managed out of the door”. He agreed to reinstate her wages and that she could continue in her role as Sales Manager. Wages and back pay were furnished to her on 26th October 2017. Mr Morgan disputed the Respondent's characterisation of this as a pay increase. In fact, he said it was a restoration of the Complainant's original pay level. Mr Morgan disputed the authenticity of a document produced by the Respondent, purported to have been created around 2017, which set out a new package without bonuses. The Complainant denies this document was ever presented to her at the time or ever and the agreement it alleges to express is entirely disputed.
In or around August 2018, the sales targets for the financial year 2017–2018 had been achieved and on foot of this the Complainant requested a meeting in order to seek guidance on the workings of the bonus scheme. The Complainant indicated she was unsure what year to go on in calculating her bonuses, where sales targets over the two years combined had been achieved.
Mr Morgan said that the Complainant was told by Mr Holland to shred the document as it was old and obsolete, that she was performing badly and that the bonuses were not awarded on the basis of figures alone. Mr Holland agreed to come back to the Complainant in the coming days.
Mr Morgan said that Mr Holland never reverted as promised and the bonuses, which accrued during the course of her employment, remain outstanding and have remained so since the termination of her employment on 20 th November 2018.
The Complainant contended that there was a change in the atmosphere at sales meetings held in October 2018, where she described the atmosphere as toxic and she said that she felt undermined by Mr Holland.
Mr Morgan said that as a result of the increasing pressure and stress the Complainant contracted pneumonia and was signed off by her doctor from 10th to 18th of October. On her return to work she was invited to a performance review meeting with Mr Holland and to discuss sales figures. Mr Morgan said that the Complainant felt ambushed at the meeting. The following day, Mr Holland arranged a further meeting at very short notice, to take place that afternoon. The Complainant sought to defer it however, he insisted on the meeting going ahead. The Complainant went through her issues and concerns with Mr Holland and at the conclusion of the meeting handed in her notice. Mr Holland accepted her resignation by email on 24 th October 2018. This email also indicated his willingness to waive the loan provided for the deposit on the car, which the Complainant indicated by way of reply that there had been no loan in the first instance and therefore the point was moot. The Complainant met with Mr Holland on 25th October 2018. She explained her reasons for leaving and was then placed on garden leave. Her employment terminated on 20th November 2018.
Mr Morgan said that the Complainant had sought to resolve matters by way of engaging with the Respondent in circumstances where she and the Managing Director both occupied management positions. However, he submitted that the Respondent failed refused and/or neglected to address the issues raised by the Complainant. She said that as her complaints related to issues between Mr Holland and herself, both members of management, there was no other forum to make her complaint to.
Mr Aaron Shearer B.L., instructed by Barror Co Solicitors, on behalf of the Respondent disputed the Complainant's contention that she had no alternative other than to tender her resignation in October 2018. He said that the Respondent denied any interactions with the Complainant, at any time, were designed to undermine her position at work. There were issues with the Complainant's performance at work and in or about October 2018 the Respondent initiated a performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial