Former manager with Lisney takes claim

A former divisional property manager with Lisney, one of Ireland's largest estate agencies, has claimed he was effectively dismissed because the terms of his employment had been unilaterally changed and he no longer had any defined job in the organisation.

A case taken by the former manager, Mr Niall O'Higgins (41), opened in the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Dublin yesterday. Lisney has rejected the constructive dismissal claim and said there was no desire at any time for Mr O'Higgins to resign, that attempts had been made to dissuade him and that Lisney would be "more than happy to discuss re-engagement".

Mr James Phillips, counsel for Mr O'Higgins, said his client, a chartered surveyor now setting up his own business, claimed he had no option but to resign.

As the divisional director of the property management section, he had been called into a meeting in December 2001 and told the property management and surveying sections were to merge and the surveying manager would be head of the new section.

Mr O'Higgins was "effectively demoted or at best sidelined", Mr Phillips said. Mr O'Higgins wrote to the managing director and said the situation was "completely intolerable". He had built up the property management section, which had been "low in credibility" and this was the company's response to his success.

The former employee had been with the company for 22 years and a property manager since 1989. In 1999 he was appointed divisional director, one of eight.

Counsel said the decision meant he was no longer a manager and, most fundamentally, the basis of his salary had been removed and he did not know how his salary would be earned. He had received a basic salary and commission based on the earnings he generated for the property management section. When he left in January 2002 he was owed salary and commission and was sent a cheque, for what he believed was the correct amount, but it was "bounced" by the company.

Mr Keradi Naidoo for Lisney, said the cheque was refused because the company had been overpaying Mr O'Higgins for a number of months. Parallel legal proceedings were underway in the Circuit Court linked to this issue.

Mr Naidoo said there were no complaints about Mr O'Higgins work. It was true he had been told someone else was going to take over management of the new section. There was a second meeting and it was clear there had been a misunderstanding, which was clarified but nothing had changed in the terms of his employment.

His employment activities had changed and as part of his ongoing progress there were changes to his advantage, which he pursued in the six months up to his resignation, Mr Naidoo said.

The hearing will resume in October.