Recruitment Company Owned by Former Presidential Candidate Ordered to Pay €3,000 for Unfair Dismissal
A recruitment company owned by former Irish presidential candidate Peter Casey has been instructed by the Labour Court to pay €3,000 to a former executive who was unfairly dismissed from his position. The decision comes after an appeal by the former employee, Michael O’Sullivan, against a ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission that the compensation for his unfair dismissal should only be €250.
The Labour Court ruled in favor of O’Sullivan, highlighting serious issues with the company’s employee handbook and its failure to follow its own procedures in dealing with his dismissal. The court also noted that Mr. Casey had explicitly denied O’Sullivan the right to appeal the decision to terminate his employment.
During the hearing, O’Sullivan accused Casey, who is the executive chairman of Claddagh Resources, of abusive behavior and claimed to have been fired on the spot during a meeting on March 18th, 2021. O’Sullivan further alleged that Casey was bullying and almost violent towards him. However, Mr. Casey was not present as a witness in the unfair dismissal case.
The Labour Court heard that O’Sullivan had never met the financial targets set out in his employment contract, which were six times his annual salary. As a result, a performance improvement plan was created, which served as a final written warning. The court found it inconsistent to include a warning in a plan meant to improve performance.
There was a conflict of evidence regarding O’Sullivan’s dismissal. While O’Sullivan believed he was fired by Peter Casey during the meeting in question, the company claimed that Casey had deferred the final decision to his son, Ryan Casey, who is the chief executive of Claddagh Resources. Claddagh executives, including Ryan Casey, testified that O’Sullivan was dismissed due to poor performance and an inappropriate email sent to a colleague.
The Labour Court concluded that the dismissal of O’Sullivan was unfair and that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down. However, it determined that neither reinstatement nor re-engagement would be an appropriate remedy. The court noted O’Sullivan’s pattern of underperformance, as well as his contribution to his own dismissal through the inappropriate and threatening email he sent to a junior colleague. Therefore, the court awarded him compensation of €3,000, which was slightly less than one month’s gross salary.
This ruling serves as a reminder for companies to ensure fair treatment of employees and to adhere to proper procedures when dealing with dismissals. It also highlights the importance of communication and transparency in maintaining a healthy work environment.
