A former executive at a listed Irish fintech has filed a claim for more than €100,000 in lost profits in compensation for what he claims was unfair dismissal without cause by the company last September.
Homas Hackett says he was promised a ‘substantial equity package’ when he was recruited to join tech entrepreneur Maurice Healy’s Glantus as a start-up – but was turned down this participation by being sacked before being able to become its owner.
He filed legal complaints against his former employer under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 and the Organization of Working Time Act 1997.
His former employer insists the WRC has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint by Mr Hackett under the 1977 Act, arguing that he worked less than the required full year, which the complainant disputes .
At a hearing yesterday afternoon at the headquarters of the Workplace Relations Commission in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Mr Hackett’s lawyer said the shareholding was still being sued in the High Court – but his client was seeking compensation for a year’s loss of earnings.
He said Mr Hackett’s gross annual salary before his dismissal was €100,000, plus expenses of €500 a month.
Pádraig Lyons BL, who appeared for the plaintiff appointed by lawyers for Byrne Wallace, said that 10 days before the company’s May 2021 IPO, his client received a phone call from its CEO, Maurice Healy , telling them that there had been “an error” in the plaintiff’s stock option certificate.
He said his client rejected that proposal and Mr Healy replied: ‘You’ve only been in the business for eight months and you don’t deserve your stock options to vest in the IPO .”
Mr Hackett said it would be unfair for him to wait for a subsequent vesting period to expire, Mr Lyons told the court, but Mr Healy went on to say that if he n did not agree to do so, the employer “would take what was necessary”. action to make sure that happens”.
Mr. Lyons added that in return for agreeing to the vesting period, his client had obtained from his employer a commitment “whereby his contract could not be terminated without six months’ notice”.
Mr. Hackett having moved to his hometown of Boston, Mr. Healy then said that the plaintiff should transfer his employment to the US branch of Glantus, the lawyer said.
Mr Lyons said his client was then presented with an “at will” employment contract on August 23, 2021 and when he raised issues with it – including the six-month notice period – there had been “radio silence” from the company’s human resources manager.
“What happens then is that on September 9, 2021 [the HR officer] calls Mr. Hackett and sends him away. No reason, no warning, nothing,” Mr. Lyons said.
He said his client subsequently received a letter saying the company had “assessed, monitored and evaluated the performance” of Mr Hackett and “did not find his skills a good match”.
“Mr. Hackett knew nothing about it and had no opportunity to contribute to it at all,” he said.
There was a lengthy legal discussion about whether Mr Hackett’s employment lasted a full year.
Lorna Lynch SC, retained by A&L Goodbody for the respondent, argued that Mr. Hackett’s original contract of employment began on October 1, 2020, but was then backdated by the company to Saturday September 26 of this year – making September 28, 2020, his first day.
The company’s position was that the complainant received notice of termination on September 9, 2021 and had received his notice, meaning he had less than a year of service with the company and therefore could not avail of unfair dismissal law.
She added that Mr Hackett had received full payment of six months’ salary at this stage.
Mr Lyons claimed his client had worked for the company since September 15, 2020, when his client attended a virtual strategy meeting, after which he had worked “intensely” for the remainder of that month.
Mr Lyons argued that as Mr Hackett had a contractual right to a six month notice period and his employer had elected to pay instead, the correct termination date was the date of payment on September 29 , when the payment has been made.
“While it is admitted that Mr. Hackett’s employment commenced on the 26th [of September 2020]the payment was made on the 29th [September 2021] — that’s a year later,” he said.
Ms Lynch said the plaintiff requested back pay and expenses when his contract was backdated shortly thereafter, but did not seek reimbursement until mid-September 2020.
Both sides cited the UK Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Societe Generale v Geys as a precedent in the matter – with Ms Lynch arguing that the court had given more weight to the notification itself rather only on the date of payment.
Mr Lyons further argued that section 13 of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 overrides all contract terms which “purport to exclude or limit the operation” of the law.
“Section 13 means that if an employer seeks to use pay in lieu of notice to exclude him from the law, it is void,” he said.
However, he admitted this was a “difficult” point as there was no direct precedent and he was unaware of any previous occasion where the argument had been made.
“Mr. Lyons seems to be saying that a pay in lieu clause is okay, but if it’s rolled out for almost a year it becomes void ab initio… Maybe there’s a reason for which the argument hasn’t been made before – it certainly isn’t the case for this,” Ms Lynch said.
Adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill adjourned the case in November.
#ExIrish #fintech #executive #files #unfair #dismissal #claim
