A former director of a publicly traded Irish fintech company has filed a claim for more than €100,000 in lost revenue as compensation for what he believes was an unfair unjustified dismissal by the company last September.
Homas Hackett says he was promised a “substantial shareholding” when he was headhunted to join tech entrepreneur Maurice Healy’s Glantus as a start-up – but was denied this shareholding by being fired before he got there. could own.
He has filed legal complaints against his former employer under the Unfair Dismissal Act of 1977 and the Organization of Working Time Act of 1997.
His former employer maintains that the WRC has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint from Mr Hackett under the 1977 Act alleging that he has worked less than the required full year, which the complainant disputes.
At a hearing yesterday afternoon at the Workplace Relations Commission headquarters in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Mr Hackett’s lawyer said that share ownership is still being pursued by the High Court, but that his client is claiming compensation for a year’s lost earnings. .
He said Mr Hackett’s gross annual salary before his resignation was €100,000, plus an expense allowance of €500 per month.
Appearing before the complainant instructed by Byrne Wallace’s lawyers, Pádraig Lyons BL said his client received a call from its CEO, Maurice Healy, 10 days prior to the company’s IPO in May 2021, stating that “an error” in the complainant’s share option certificate.
He said his client rejected that proposal and that Mr. Healy replied, “You’ve only been with the company for eight months and you don’t deserve to have your stock options vest in the IPO.”
Mr Hackett said it would be unfair for him to wait until a later waiting period expires, Mr Lyons told the tribunal, but Mr Healy further told him that if he did not agree, the employer would “take necessary action.” to make sure it happens.”
Mr Lyons added that in return for agreeing to the waiting period, his client was given a commitment from his employer “under which his contract could not be terminated without six months’ notice”.
After Mr Hackett moved to his native Boston, Mr Healy went on to say that the complainant should transfer his job to Glantus’s US arm, counsel said.
Mr Lyons said his client was subsequently offered an “at will” employment contract on August 23, 2021 and that when he raised issues with it — including the six-month notice period — there was “radio silence” from the company’s HR officer.
“What happens then is that on September 9, 2021 [the HR officer] calls Mr Hackett and fires him. No reason, no warning, nothing,” Lyons said.
He said his client had later received a letter saying that the company had “assessed, monitored and evaluated the performance” regarding Mr Hackett and “didn’t find his skills a good match”.
“Mr Hackett knew nothing about this and had no opportunity at all to contribute to this,” he said.
There was extensive legal discussion as to whether Mr Hackett’s employment had lasted a full year.
Lorna Lynch SC, instructed by A&L Goodbody for the respondent, argued that Mr Hackett’s original employment contract was effective October 1, 2020, but was subsequently reversed by the company to Saturday, September 26 of that year – leaving September 28, 2020 is his first day.
The company’s position was that the complainant had received notice of termination on 9 September 2021 and had received his notice of termination, meaning that he had been employed by the company for less than a year and thus could not benefit from the Unfair Dismissal Act.
She added that Mr Hackett was currently receiving a full payment of six months’ salary.
Mr Lyons claimed that his client had been working for the company from September 15, 2020, when his client attended a virtual strategy meeting, after which he worked “extensively” for the remainder of that month.
Mr Lyons argued that since Mr Hackett was contractually entitled to six months’ notice and his employer had chosen to pay instead, the correct termination date was the date of payment on September 29, when the payment was made. done.
“Even if it is assumed that Mr Hackett’s employment at 26 [of September 2020]the payment was made on the 29 [September 2021] — that’s a year later,” he said.
Ms Lynch said that the complainant had claimed his wages and expenses when his contract expired with retroactive effect shortly afterwards, but that he had not requested a refund until mid-September 2020.
Both sides cited the 2012 UK Supreme Court ruling in Société Générale v Geys as precedent in this case – with Ms Lynch arguing that the court had given more weight to the notice itself than to the date of payment.
Mr Lyons further argued that Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 invalidates any contract terms “which are intended to exclude or limit the application” of the Act.
“Section 13 means that if an employer wishes to use wages instead of notice to exclude him from the law, it is null and void,” he said.
However, he admitted that this was a “difficult” point as there was no direct precedent and he was not aware of a previous occasion where the argument had been made.
“Mr Lyons seems to be saying that a termination clause is fine, but if they’re deployed for almost a year they become invalid ab initio… Perhaps there’s a reason the argument wasn’t made sooner – this certainly isn’t the reason for it,” said Mrs Lynch.
Arbitrator Breiffni O’Neill postponed the case until November.