Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Manager

A Start Up Company

Representatives

  Appeared in Person

 Chief Operating Officer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00058079-001

3 August 2023

On 3 August 2023, the Worker a former Sales Manager with the Employer submitted a complaint that he had to leave his job due to the conduct of his employer. He had short of 9 months service and was unable to ground a complaint for statutory unfair dismissal. This complaint amounts to a Trade Dispute between the parties.

The Employer was advised of the Dispute on 14 August 2023 and did not respond when requested if they had any objection to the WRC conducting an investigation of the Trade Dispute.

On 16 January 2024, I wrote to the Parties   seeking outline submissions in the case. On 18 January 2024, the Employer submitted a written submission.

Both parties attended the hearing in this case on 22 January 2024. Both appeared in their own case and were welcomed.

The Worker outlined that he had commenced work with the Employer on 25 July 2022 and felt compelled to leave the employment on 5 May 2023.

He was a full-time worker.

The Worker stated that he was hired into a sales Management role with responsibility for Account Executives. This grouping commenced with six, with a projected growth to 20. He made enquiries about the anticipated “runway “and understood that it was solid.

 Three days post commencement, he started to feel uneasy about the company as the introduction he had received on the company was different to the real picture on the ground. By October 2022, a series of disgruntled key staff were leaving. He began to feel restricted.

He had commenced some work on compilation of the staff handbook, but there was no uptake on his efforts.

 The Head of Sales departed the company in November 2022, causing the reporting relationship to be aligned to the CEO, who took on the mantle of head of sales.

Trading was challenging and results were poor. Around April 2023, The Worker outlined that he was requested for his opinion on the just why the sales team were underperforming?

 The Worker said he contributed many reasons, largely of a strategic nature.

These were not accepted by the Employer, and he was approached directly on what he intended to do. The Worker felt a disconnect between him and the employer as a result. He felt that he had been set up for a fall as he was limited in what he could suggest from his hierarchical base. He did make some suggestions, but he contended that they went unheard. The Worker contended that he “was flogging a dead horse “

A series of meeting occurred without a resolution before the Worker stated that he was approached to ascertain whether he wanted to hand in his notice? The Worker reluctantly said yes, “I will hand it in “.

By then, the worker stated that he was unhappy at work and stressed and he initially “was content to leave a bad situation and receive what I was owed “

He had plans to advance a business plan with a friend and entered a period of freelance employment.

The Worker told the hearing that he could not use the grievance procedure as his conflict as a Senior Manager centred on his relationship with the CEO. This was not scripted for in the company documents. He had no recollection of a probation period or performance appraisal during his employment.

The Worker made a series of attempts to receive what he was owed at the cessation of employment but there were unreasonable delays on the employer’s side.

The Worker introduced his complaint as being a reluctant claimant, but he felt the need to address the unnecessary stress that he was exposed to in this employment.

The Worker concluded by seeking compensation for his loss of earnings, his stress, the administrative burden of a reconciliation exercise on PRSA and his own reputational damage.

The Employer operates a Start Up Tech Business and has rejected the claim.

The Company Chief Operating Officer filed the outline submission and confirmed that the Worker had been employed as Sales Manager from July 25, 2022, to May 4, 2023. He exhibited the contract of employment.

He outlined that the Worker submitted his notice to leave the employment on April 4, 2023. He formalised it in an email dated April 5, 2023, at 09.44hrs, giving 4 weeks’ notice.

The Employer said that he was unaware that the Worker was dissatisfied in his role as he had not raised any issues during his employment tenure. The Employer denied placing the Worker under duress or terminating his employment.

He described the working relationship as cordial and centred on training in product and sales process. They met weekly to review sales metrics and pipeline. They collaborated on the staff handbook.

The Employer described being surprised by the Workers intended departure as he had not activated   a grievance s outlined in Section 2.2 of the Company Handbook. He had not canvassed the resignation from the Worker. The Worker did not seek to retract his notice and was paid to his date of cessation   on May 4, 2023.

At hearing and in response to the Workers opening statement, the Employer queried why the Worker had not responded to his immediate concerns on joining the business?

He declared that the Worker had not provided a reason for leaving and the grievance procedure was readily available. He contended that he was under the understanding that the Worker had left to work on a friend’s business.

 In responding to the Workers stated concerns that he did not have a window of resolution open to him in light of the duality of seniority in both employees, the Employer responded by saying that he could have approached the Board for a resolution.

The Employer disputed that the Worker had been unfairly treated. He disputed any liability for a PRSA administration.

The Employer closed by stating that the Worker left and immediately commenced a new role. He did not accept that he was liable if that role had not worked out.

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

This is a dispute which has been submitted under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

Section 13 of the Act is well tailored to help in a problem, conflict or breakdown in a live employment relationship.

The case before me today is not a live employment relationship. The employment ceased in May 2023, some three months before the Dispute was shared with the WRC on August 3, 2023.

It is clear that while the worker has introduced his claim as a Constructive Dismissal, seeking an investigation under IR Legislation, that this employment has ceased for both parties, his preferred route is towards a statutory claim for constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

However, at 9-month service, he has insufficient service to ground that claim.

My role in this case is to investigate this dispute and if I find merit in the dispute to make a Recommendation to both parties on a suggested way forward.

I have reflected on all I heard at hearing. I have read all the documents which have accompanied the parties’ submissions. I have considered the contract of employment and staff handbook.

 The submitted Employee Handbook dated 29 December 2020, was prior to the Workers tenure at the business.

I have found that that the Worker signed acceptance of the terms of his employment on 23 June 2022. He commenced work one month later and very quickly developed a “buyers regret “in relation to the post. The position was not what it has been represented to be , and the worker was apprehensive that he had been exposed to a large-scale misrepresentation of the business.

He found himself static while colleagues around him left. His reporting relationship changed. He formed the view that he was not being heard at the business and the trajectory changed from one of optimism to one of “the long goodbye “by April 2023.

He described feeling pressurised to submit his resignation following a conflictual encounter with the owner.

The record of the notice did not allow me to read into it that the worker was actively struggling in the workplace. He did not give a reason, neither was he entertained at an exit interview.

The notice of termination was accepted at the business and the Worker left on May 5, 2023, having served most of his contractual 4-week notice.

The Employer denied driving the worker out of the employment. He denied canvassing his resignation.

He disputed the workers account of an early unhappiness after 3 days in the workplace and focussed that he had not tabled that discontent at any time through the company procedures.

For me, I would have liked to have seen a probation report or performance appraisal process in its complete form. It is clear to me that the Employer erred by not engaging in this process.

I can appreciate that the parties were engaging weekly at work, however, I did not find a satisfactory record of probation in this case.

I was struck by the workers honest account that he was at peace with his decision to leave the employment were it not for the incompleteness of his payment on leaving.

He freely admitted that these disputed payments (subject of a separate case) were his motivation for placing this employment before the WRC for scrutiny.

I can accept that the Worker faced a tumultuous administrative period of time seeking to reconcile his PRSA from an earlier employer for tax purposes with the current employer. I can accept that he has been placed in a negative zone by this. However, given the historical origin of the PRSA predated this employment, the Revenue implications must rest between the worker and the Revenue alone.

The Worker did not exhibit any medical records of stress or absence from work for the period of the claim.

I have found that the worker was at peace with his decision to resign his position on 4 and 5 April 2023. He went on to work his notice in the same position. He did not leave immediately as I might have expected in a reported compulsory leaving situation.

I can accept that the worker may have erred in choosing to join this employment. I can accept that he asked open questions on the anticipated road map for the business, and he did try hard to fit in. However, he became concerned by  the gulf  between the descriptions of the business and the reality of the business on the ground. He was not comfortable as an employee at this business.

I can accept that he was concerned when he witnessed key staff leaving the business in Autumn/ Winter 2022. I can appreciate that he was deterred  by the “golden handcuffs “he attributed to the role.

However, I accept the Employers point when he said that he observed a positive energy in the worker on leaving as he had concrete plans for his next step in business. I accept that the worker did not explain his reason for leaving the business in real time. He ought to have been entertained at an exit interview.

I would have expected the Worker to have actioned a grievance during the course of his employment to at the very minimum capture his growing unease. I do not accept that the grievance procedure eluded him because of the ongoing conflict he felt with his manager.

The Worker has not demonstrated his reputational damage in his employment sphere .

A worker is expected to have exhausted the internal procedures open to him prior to referral of issues to the WRC. This did not occur.

I find that given the workers own acknowledged proximity to the staff handbook, that he could have found his way to an internal conflict resolution forum much sooner.

I must conclude that given the timing of the claim and the workers own admissions that he was prepared to leave the matter of his resignation lie until he felt obstructed by nonpayment at the cessation of his employment , that the primary focus  for the worker is  the outstanding financial and Revenue matters which survived his employment .

I can understand that the worker felt deceived by the introduction he received to the company. I can accept that he stayed long enough to make a calculated decision for himself that his continuance at the company was not in his interests.

However, I have not found that the worker was driven out by the Employer on this occasion. The employment would have benefitted from an active probation and performance appraisal, where both parties could have maximised the potential for a successful employment. It would also have benefitted from an exit interview in real time .

Instead, the employment was unsuccessful beyond April 2023. Both parties share a responsibility for this cessation.

I have not found merit in this dispute.

Dispute on the cessation of employment