Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An IT Engineer

An IT Software Company

Representatives

 In Person

 No Attendance

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00063673

23.5.2024

This is a constructive dismissal complaint brought under the Industrial Relations Acts, the Employee not having 12 months service with his former employer (hereafter referred to as the Employer.)

The Worker’s evidence was as follows:

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 24 April 2023 as a Senior Backend Software Engineer with a yearly base salary of €75,000. The Employer’s business is software design and development for use by sports clubs, mostly GAA clubs to publicise events, fundraising campaigns, training camps and manage club membership.

During his recruitment process, he was told that he would receive a pension and healthcare package, which never materialised.

Terms and Conditions

In July/August 2023, he was promoted to Head of Engineering without a corresponding salary adjustment. A month after the promotion, he was offered a salary increase of €5,000, raising his salary to €80,000, which was significantly below the industry average of €120,000 for the role. He raised concerns about this with the Head of Technology and Product, but these were ignored. Despite making repeated requests for a fair salary adjustment, his concerns were dismissed, leaving him feeling undervalued and demotivated. He asked HR to consider a grievance over this but no one in HR responded. It was common that complaints were just ignored by the Employer.

Organisational Changes:

In August-October 2023, in his new role of Head of Engineering, he worked hard to improve what was a chaotic work environment and culture, characterized by frequent arguments and discord in management meetings.

As Head of Engineering, he implemented team restructure and introduced Product Requirement Documents (PRDs) to standardize product development. PRDs are standard in the software design process and are necessary for effective development as they provide detailed specifications and requirements which guide the engineering team. A title and short description, which was until then provided to the Engineering team was entirely insufficient for design and development, as it lacked the necessary detail to give the engineers clarity, direction, purpose and limits.

A central fundamental problem with the organisational structure of the Employer was that the engineers (the Worker headed up the Engineering team) was answerable to the Head of Technology and Product, which is essentially a sales role. A dysfunctional relationship developed between the Tech and Product team and the Engineering Team. Without PRDs the engineers were always unclear on what it was they were being required to do. However, despite the introduction of PRDs by the Worker (which immediately had improved things)  the Head of Tech and Product dismissed the need for PRDs and instead wanted to use email communication which meant that the specific task description was incomplete and unclear. So much wasted work ensued. Designs were often scrapped and restarted when the instructions changed or more detail (that should have been made clear at the start) was added.

Unpaid Overtime and Workload Issues:

The Worker’s workload was immense, often requiring weekend work which was unpaid. The Worker was promised time off in lieu of this overtime but that was later denied by the Head of Technology and Product.

Due to the refusal by the Head of Tech and Product to cooperate with what the engineers needed and sought  the Worker was required to do additional work  to keep projects on track. Requests for changes and better planning were ignored, leading to increased stress and burnout. Many in the engineering team experienced similar issues. Complaints about unpaid overtime and unrealistic work expectations amongst the engineer team became common.

Health Decline and Sick Leave:

In the first two weeks of October 2023 the Worker experienced extreme stress, overwork, and lack of support, He went on sick leave informing the Employer that he was suffering from exhaustion and burnout, depression, stress, and anxiety. Despite submitting a doctor’s note, the Head of Tech and Product asked him to come in on the first day of his sick leave to train some other staff, even though he had prepared a detailed handover document. Initially, he agreed but later retracted this offer realising how unreasonable it was.

Return from Sick Leave and Management Issues:

The Worker returned to work at the end of October 2023. Upon his return, he found that the Product team had taken over managing the engineers directly. The engineers had been instructed to cease the practice of use of PRDs. This resulted in confusion and complaints from the Engineering team. The Worker’s attempts to address these issues in meetings with the CTO and the Head of Tech and Product were met with denial and resistance to any of his recommendations. His position of Head of Engineering was being reduced and becoming in name only.

Engineering Team Replacement:

In October 2023 the company began outsourcing engineering tasks to a third-party software development company, leading to a complete replacement of many of the engineering team. The Worker was directed to take over this transfer of personnel in hiring and transitioning tasks, which further added to an already overwhelming workload.

These staff changes were initially meant to be 3-4 people but quickly became most of the engineering team, which worried the Worker as he worried if he would be next.  He was asked to provide numbers for how many engineers were needed, but not provided with the reason for this information. Meanwhile the information he needed to continue to lead engineering was being kept from him and circulated only amongst the CEO, CTO and Head of Tech and Product.  

This included information such as staff they were replacing, budget for the projects, and staff.

He was without the necessary information to do his job. He was told that he would be sent the information, but that never happened.

2024 Planning Meeting:

In November 2023 the Worker attended a meeting with the CTO and Head of Tech and Product, where he was presented with a vague plan for 2024, which lacked detailed project information necessary for timeline estimations.

When he raised concerns about the lack of detail and was refused timelines on this information, he was accused of not doing his job. He suggested dedicating a week to collaborate and resolve these issues, which was initially agreed upon but later refused by the Head of Tech and Product

Proposal Meeting and Resignation

Late November/early December 2023  due to ongoing issues including inadequate management by the non-technical product team, lack of PRDs, and interference in the engineering team's workflow, the Worker decided to propose his own comprehensive alternative restructuring plan. In response he was presented with another plan which significantly reduced the Worker’s role, almost making it non-existent. It stated that the Worker would be working directly under the Head of Tech and Product and would be in meetings all year, moving him away from managing the engineering teams.

The job of Head of Engineering his job had become an assistant to the Head of Tech and Product. His job was being utterly changed without his agreement. He had no say on what his role was becoming. This prompted him to write his own proposal for the following day's meeting with the CEO. He meticulously prepared a document outlining a detailed restructuring proposal aimed at resolving the issues. His plan suggested that the product and engineering teams work together as separate entities, with the product team feeding information to the engineering teams through the Worker and two dedicated senior engineers working to eliminate confusion and improve efficiency.

The meeting on 3 December 2023 included the Worker, CEO, CTO, and Head of Technology/Product.

During the meeting, he presented his alternative plan. The key points included: - Separation of the product and engineering teams to avoid overlap and confusion. - re-implementation of detailed PRDs to ensure the engineering team had clear, actionable information. - Changes in management practices (Meetings, demos, progress tracking, etc..) to allow the engineering team to work without interruption.

The Head of Tech and Product was immediately dismissive of his proposal. He vocally disagreed with the Worker’s suggestions, claiming that the current structure was sufficient despite the issues that were evident. The CEO acknowledged receipt of the Worker’s alternative proposal and said he would read it, though he did not commit to anything. The CTO remained mostly silent during the discussion, providing little input.

As the meeting progressed, the Head of Tech and Product’s aggressive attitude intensified. He continually interrupted and dismissed the Worker’s concerns, accusing him of not performing his duties effectively.

In response the Worker tried to remain calm and reiterated the practical reasons for his proposal,  emphasizing that the proposed changes were necessary for the team’s productivity and his ability to perform the role that he had been appointed to,  effectively.

Frustrated by the Head of Tech and Product’s refusal to acknowledge the issues the Worker reached a breaking point. He explicitly questioned why the product team were not producing the necessary PRDs needed to perform his job and instead were managing the engineering teams. He accused the team of managing him out and no one disagreed.

The Worker accepts that he used inappropriate language which ended the meeting. But that was because he felt stressed, unsupported, and increasingly anxious about his position within the company. In response to his question, no one from management assured him that he would retain the position that he had held as Head of Engineering. This constituted a constructive dismissal and he decided that he could no longer continue in such a toxic work environment. He submitted his resignation the following day. The CEO did not mention his alternative plan which he had said he would consider but clearly had no real intention of doing so.

The Worker agreed with the CEO to a handover period that would conclude in February 2024. During this period, the Worker minimized direct communication with the Head of Tech and Product, interacting with him only when necessary and always with others present to avoid further conflict.

In February 2024 his role and that of the rest of the Engineering Team was outsourced to a third party software design company.

No attendance

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Worker, I am satisfied that the Worker was constructively dismissed from his role of Head of Engineering.

I am satisfied that the Worker was employed and promoted to the post of Head of Engineering.

I am satisfied that he made every attempt to do his job, to improve software development processes but these efforts were frustrated by management. I am satisfied that he worked overtime for which he was not paid or given off time in lieu. I am satisfied that at the end of his employment, his role of Head of Engineering was restructured into a new role, which separated him from the engineering team, as that team was being outsourced but he was not told that. I am satisfied that this new role was not the job for which he had been hired to do or promoted to.

In the face of this he still attempted to be constructive by devising an alternative plan and despite being told by the CEO that his plan would be considered, the conduct of the Head of Tech and Product at the meeting on 3 December 2023 made it clear that his alternative plan would never be implemented.

The criticisms of his work performance and the failure to acknowledge his contribution to the business, particularly in light of what was known by management to be a stress related work absence by him in October 2023, led to a breaking point for the Worker.

By the 3 December 2023 I accept that it became an intolerable working environment for the Worker because of the environment but more significantly the attempt to deny him the job responsibilities that he had been hired to do. I accept that it it was reasonable for him to terminate his contract of employment by tendering his resignation.

I take into account the Worker’s evidence that there was no effective operational grievance procedure available to the staff and that previous grievances made by the Worker to HR had been ignored. However I am also satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the Worker’s verbally expressed grievance within the multiple meetings that he had originally with the Head of Tech and Product, and when this was ignored with the CEO and CTO. Finally  I am also satisfied that the unilateral change to his job function was an action that most certainly gave rise to a constructive dismissal

I find this complaint to be well founded.

In reaching an appropriate level of award, I consider that his loss of salary (€37200) from February 2024 to date, also needs to be balanced with the Complainant’s evidence that he was unable to mitigate his loss straight away -  by seeking alterative work -  because of anxiety and loss of confidence that was caused by his Employer.

Taking this all into account I recommend that the Worker is compensated in the sum of €10,000.

IR – Constructive Dismissal