The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered that a tech company here pay a former senior executive €250,000 compensation for his unfair dismissal.
WRC Adjudication Officer Jim O'Connell found that fair procedures were "totally denied" to the former Vice President of the employer in his unfair dismissal.
The former VP told a WRC hearing that he had to get someone to let him out of his former workplace on the day he was unfairly dismissed in June of last year as all the security codes were changed during the telephone call when he was fired.
The VP was employed from January 1, 2006 until June 18, 2018 and was on a gross salary of €150,000 a year when his contract of employment was terminated.
The claimant was paid his notice period to September 18, 2018.
At the Workplace Relations Commission, the former VP was seeking re-instatement or re-engagement with his former employer.
However in his findings, Mr O'Connell ruled out these options as they "are unpractical and given the likely prospect of further legal proceedings would certainly not be conducive to a good working relationship".
Mr O'Connell also found that the former VP's ability to secure new work post the unfair dismissal "were severely restricted by a clause in his contract of employment".
Mr O'Connell said that the contract identified periods of time and certain type entities from which the former VP was precluded from seeking employment with, without first seeking specific written consent of his former employer's Executive Vice President (EVP) of Global Human Resources.
Mr O'Connell found that when the former VP asked why his position was being terminated he was denied his rights and procedures contained in his former employer's own handbook.
As part of his case, the former VP told the WRC that he received a phone call on the morning of June 18 last year asking him to phone into a conference call at 9am that morning and in doing so he was informed by the Chief Business Officer that his contract of employment was terminated.
The former VP told the WRC that he asked several times why his contract was being terminated only to be simply told "Your contract is terminated".
He stated that he was requested to leave his office immediately and that no reason was ever received from the company for the termination of his contract of employment.
The former VP stated that when he took the telephone call, the senior HR person from the UK walked into the room to be present during the conversation.
As part of the background to the case, the former VP's business was purchased by his employer's parent company towards the end of 2015.
At the WRC hearing, the employer argued that the claimant's contract of employment was terminated in accordance with its terms and conditions.
The company claimed that employers have an entitlement at common law to terminate the employment of employees, without cause, in accordance with the relevant contractual provisions.
The employer also stated that it was opposed, in the strongest possible terms, to the remedy of re-instatement or re-engagement.
It said it purchased the claimant's business to integrate its software technology with hardware products.
However, this integration did not prove feasible or acceptable in the marketplace and a lead customer which was designated as the target purchaser for the product, ultimately refused to acquire it.
At the one day WRC hearing last July, the employer stated that a radical re-structuring process of the business will have the unfortunate result of making the clear majority of the employees redundant.
The company stated that following the conclusion of the redundancy consultation process, 15 employees were served with a notice of redundancy with a phased effect ending on September 30 2019.
The employer stated that re-instatement would in effect mean the claimant would be overseeing his own redundancy in an operation that has ceased to trade.
"Given the seniority of the role the claimant held re-engagement would not be practical," the company said.
Mr O'Connell stated that the former VP had additional incentives/benefits with the company which are the subject matter before the High Court.
The company can appeal the WRC unfair dismissal finding and the €250,000 award to the Labour Court.
