A former executive at a publicly-traded Irish fintech firm has lodged a claim for more than €100,000 in lost earnings as redress for what he claims was an unfair dismissal with no stated reason by the company last September.
Thomas Hackett says he was promised a “substantial equity package” when he was headhunted to join tech entrepreneur Maurice Healy’s Glantus as a start-up — but that he was denied this shareholding by being sacked before he could take ownership of it.
He has lodged statutory complaints against his former employer under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
His former employer insists the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint by Mr Hackett under the 1977 Act, arguing he worked less than the full year required, which the complainant disputes.
At the WRC on Tuesday, Mr Hackett’s barrister said the shareholding was still being pursued in the High Court — but that his client was seeking compensation for a year’s lost earnings at the employment tribunal.
He said Mr Hackett’s gross annual salary before his dismissal was €100,000, plus expenses of €500 a month.
Pádraig Lyons, who appeared for the complainant, said that 10 days prior to the firm’s initial public offering (IPO) in May 2021, his client got a phone call from its chief executive, Maurice Healy.
His client was told there had been “a mistake” with his share option certificate.
Mr Lyons said his client rejected that proposition and that Mr Healy replied: “You’ve only been with the company eight months and you don’t deserve to have your share options vest upon the IPO.”
Mr Hackett said it would be unfair for him to wait for a later vesting period to elapse, Mr Lyons said, but that Mr Healy went on to tell him that if he did not agree to do it the employer would “take the necessary action to make sure that it happens”.
Mr Lyons acquiesced in return for an undertaking from “whereby his contract could not be terminated without six months’ notice”, Mr Ryan said.
Mr Hackett having relocated to his native Boston, Mr Healy then said the complainant should transfer his employment to Glantus’s US arm, counsel said.
Mr Lyons said his client was then presented with an “at-will” employment contract on August 23rd, 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 then happens is that on the 9 September 2021 [the HR officer] calls Mr Hackett and sacks him. No reason, no warning, nothing,” Mr Lyons said.
There was extensive legal argument over whether Mr Hackett’s employment had lasted the full year required for him to avail of the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Act.
Lorna Lynch SC, for the respondent, said that Mr Hackett’s original employment contract was backdated to Saturday, September 26th, 2020, making Monday, September 28th, 2020, his first day on the job.
The complainant had been given notice of termination on September 9th, 2021, less than a year later than any of those dates, and was paid in lieu of notice, she said.
Mr Lyons said his client had started earlier, on September 15th, 2020, attending a virtual strategy meeting and working “extensively” for the rest of that month.
He argued the earliest Mr Hackett’s employment could have been over was the date he received payment in lieu of notice, on September 29th, 2021, more than a year later.
Adjudicating officer Breiffni O’Neill adjourned the matter to later this year.
