The case surrounds a constructive dismissal claim. The claimant was a qualified accountant who advised the directors of the respondent company on the set up of a company manufacturing waste compactors. Following this, the claimant joined the company as financial controller. A second company was later set up in which the claimant owned one share and one of the directors owned another share. 

With the economic downtown the company began to decline swiftly, to such an extent that the company suffered a significant loss in 2009 of €261,000. As a director of the respondent company the claimant was personally liable if the company was insolvent and continued to trade recklessly. The claimant submitted this to the respondent at a subsequent board and shareholders meeting. However, a decision was made by another director to postpone the decision for two days. 

Following this meeting, the claimant was informed that he was being suspended for one month and in addition he was being removed as director. The claimant was not informed of the reason for his suspension. The claimant was later informed, via letter, that he had been removed as financial controller as the respondent had “lost confidence” in his ability to “produce timely and accurate figures”. The claimant argued that he had not prior to his removal been approached in regards to his work performance. 

Upon returning to work following suspension, the director informed the claimant that he should not be there and suspended him again. The claimant then received a letter stating that, “he was suspended from his role as financial director pending an external investigation”. The claimant received a further letter from the company’s solicitor informing him that if he resigned the company was willing to remove him from the guarantees. 

Whilst the company attempted to remove the claimant as director of the company, at no point was he informed that his position as financial controller was terminated. 

The tribunal was of the opinion that the claimant was unfairly dismissed when he raised the issue of “reckless trading”. The tribunal held that, "It seems to the Tribunal that, in attempting to ensure proper legal and financial compliance within the company, the claimant was ousted for not being a team player and under a completely fabricated and spurious charge that the claimant had failed in his role as Financial Controller to the extent that he had placed the future of the company in jeopardy."

It was on this basis that the tribunal awarded the claimant €40,000 by way of compensation. 

To read the full case review:
http://bit.ly/1oLgmMu