‘Deplorable’ conduct means recruiter gets just €250 over unfair dismissal

The conduct of a sacked employee of former presidential candidate Peter Casey’s recruitment firm was so “deplorable” that the Workplace Relations Commission decided to award him only €250 despite his unfair dismissal.

The tribunal upheld a complaint by recruitment consultant Michael O’Sullivan under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Claddagh Resources in a decision published on Wednesday.

Mr O’Sullivan had claimed he had been set “unrealistic targets” after being put on a performance improvement plan and was then “fired on the spot” by Claddagh Resources executive chairman Mr Casey during an appraisal meeting – claims disputed by the firm.

The complainant alleged to the tribunal in September that some colleagues were “saying negative things and trying to get him in trouble” – and that this was the “real reason” for his termination.

‘Britain needs a shake up’: UK economist from a Kilburn Irish family on banks, business and Boris

---

‘Sustainability’ is a turn-off, so try selling a good life

---

Why don’t auditors find fraud?

---

More offices for fewer clients and sitting down with an Irish Brexiteer

---

Under cross-examination, Mr O’Sullivan accepted what was said by the firm about his poor performance though he said some of it was down to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The company disputed unfair dismissal with its barrister, Claire Bruton, saying Mr O’Sullivan had been sacked because of breach of policy, misconduct and performance issues.

Company director George McAllister gave evidence that Mr O’Sullivan was expected to submit 10 possible candidates for placement with client firms weekly. In November 2020, he was told he was “not generating enough” and put on a performance improvement plan, the witness said.

Mr McAllister said the complainant was given 90 days to “improve his performance or find another job” during a meeting at the end of such a plan on March 18th, 2021.

Mr O’Sullivan maintained that he had been dismissed at the appraisal meeting by Mr Casey. He characterised it as being “fired on the spot”. The company denied he had been dismissed at the meeting.

On March 23rd, the tribunal heard, Mr O’Sullivan wrote an email to a colleague who he alleged had been speaking negatively “to try to get him fired”.

“What you were doing/have done is legal grounds for you to be fired and I have a case for defamation of character/slander against you. I expect an apology from you,” the email read. The letter also stated Mr O’Sullivan had spoken to a solicitor about it, though he admitted at hearing that he had not taken legal advice “specifically about this matter”.

Ms Bruton said the recipient of the letter was “extremely upset by it”.

Mr Casey wrote to Mr O’Sullivan stating that he had been given a chance to “turn around” his poor performance.

“You now seem determined to disrupt the Claddagh business by making accusations against employees . . . It goes without saying that I cannot have a Claddagh employee threatening to sue another employee,” Mr Casey wrote, before adding that he was terminating Mr O’Sullivan’s employment immediately.

Ms Bruton, for the company, said the decision to terminate was as a result of the email and his performance.

In his decision, adjudicating officer Pat Brady wrote that the conversation at the appraisal meeting of March 18th was “not a termination” but that it did have “the appearance of an ultimatum”.

Mr Brady found that there was still a possibility that the complainant’s termination would not be necessary if performance improved, and that, if it didn’t, a “fair process” could be applied.

“Things did not get to that point,” Mr Brady wrote, writing that it was “quite clear” that the termination was a “direct response” to the email Mr O’Sullivan sent his colleague. He found the company’s concerns on Mr O’Sullivan’s performance, which he accepted were well-founded, were “in the background” and did not form part of the decision to dismiss.

“The decision to terminate on these grounds was pre-emptory and taken without even the slightest nod in the direction of a fair process and was an unfair dismissal,” he wrote.

However, Mr Brady wrote that the “tone and content” of the email sent by Mr O’Sullivan to his colleague was “unacceptably threatening”, adding that there was no evidence for the claims made against her. He said Mr O’Sullivan had engaged in “deplorable conduct” and that he had to take these circumstances into account in fixing compensation.

“I regard the specific conduct of the complainant as being such that it is at the extreme end of the spectrum of gravity and his contribution to the termination of his employment is at the highest level imaginable,” Mr Brady wrote.

“He made an outrageous and unfounded threat against a female co-worker for which he did not offer any evidence. It’s purpose was to intimidate her, he lied about it being based on legal advice, and it resulted in her resignation from her employment,” he added.

He wrote that this was the primary factor in setting an award of just €250 compensation for a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act by the company.