The founder of a clothing line for breast cancer patients has won nearly €85,000 after a tribunal ruled she was constructively dismissed by having her salary stopped last year.
Ciara Donlan secured the sum after pursuing a series of employment rights complaints against Theya Healthcare Ltd, a brand she established a decade ago, following what she termed an “aggressive takeover” in 2023.
The company was not represented when the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard her complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in June this year.
Ms Donlan, representing herself before the employment tribunal, said the company had been profitable when a liquidation was triggered by “an aggressive takeover attempt by two angel investors” in January 2023.
READ MORE
She said that key assets of the brand were bought by members of a family involved in manufacturing medical garments in China, the Gallaghers, who offered her a job as CEO with a 40 per cent shareholding in a new entity, Theya Healthcare Ltd.
The €110,000-a-year pay deal she had was altered to €90,000 in salary plus €20,000 in expenses paid “off the books”, she said.
The remaining 60 per cent of the business was to be held by Anne Sweeney, the wife of businessman Joseph Gallagher, she said.
Ms Donlan said that when she looked for a contract for the CEO role, Mr Gallagher “dismissed the need for one”.
She said that despite assurances from the Gallagher family that production of Theya’s product line at their factories in China would be a priority, there were “persistent delays” which hit customer relations and “disrupted the sales pipeline”.
She said her efforts to co-ordinate manufacturing through the family “proved unreliable”, with her queries “often met with vague or evasive responses”.
“These difficulties made effective management of the business nearly impossible,” Ms Donlon said.
The adjudicator, Breiffni O’Neill, noted Ms Donlan’s evidence that “tensions” worsened in early September 2024 when Ms Donlon’s monthly expenses were not paid.
Ms Donlon’s case was that the company’s financial director informed her this was because she had been “instructed not to release the payment” by the respondent.
The complainant said she considered quitting at that stage, but stayed on “out of loyalty to the customer base” and other commitments.
Ms Donlan’s evidence was that having been left short by €2,500 in August, she was told around September 20th 2024 that she would not be receiving her scheduled salary payment on September 26th.
Mr O’Neill noted in his decision that the evidence before him was that there had been an instruction given not to pay Ms Donlan her salary due in September 2024 while the company “continued to pay other staff”.
There was “no lawful justification or mutual agreement” to hold back or suspend her pay, he wrote, calling this “a fundamental repudiation of the contract by the respondent”.
He concluded on this basis that Ms Donlan was constructively dismissed and awarded her nine months’ pay for her losses, a sum of €67,500.
He directed the payment of a further €10,000 to Ms Donlon for her unpaid salary under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Mr O’Neill also awarded the complainant €6,923, a sum of one month’s wages, as compensation for the failure to provide Ms Donlan with a contract of employment in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1991.
He noted that he was giving the “maximum allowable award” for this breach, as he considered the “complete failure to issue a statement of terms and conditions of employment” to be “more serious” than providing an incomplete or incorrect one.
The total awarded to Ms Donlan in the case was €84,423.
