The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) recently ruled in favour of Graziano D’Amato, a salesman who had been dismissed unjustly by his former employer, TripAdmit Ltd. The ruling, which resulted in a €42,000 award for D’Amato, found that the software corporation had violated the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 by letting him go.
D’Amato argued to the tribunal that his efforts to find new employment were significantly hampered by TripAdmit’s steadfast refusal to provide written employment references, a stance that the company’s CEO, John Maguire, defended as policy. This, D’Amato maintained, was one of the key factors keeping him jobless nearly nine months after his dismissal.
Maguire testified to the WRC that TripAdmit, established in 2019 a mere 11 months before the Covid-19 outbreak, was relying heavily on securing investment funds to remain operational. Citing insufficient funding and investment, the company cut employee numbers from 14 to 7, with D’Amato being the first dismissal.
D’Amato was aware that he was stepping into a demanding role with robust targets when he joined the company in September 2021, according to Maguire. However, D’Amato’s performance hovered at 46% of his target, and only 9% of his clients generated revenue for the struggling company.
In Maguire’s words, “We’re a loss-making company. We can’t sustain losses indefinitely.” He admitted that the wording of the termination notice could have been clearer, but reiterated that D’Amato was clearly informed of his performance inadequacies.
As stated by Mr D’Amato, the reason for his dismissal wasn’t due to his inability to meet sales targets. Mr D’Amato stated, in his own words, that the lack of sufficient income generated by customers using TripAdmit software was the predominant issue. His dismissal letter simply stated, “Regrettably, your performance isn’t satisfactory as the productivity of your clients isn’t up to par.”
No formal warning or prior indication of termination was provided to him, as he conveyed, expressing his competence as a professional and fluency in English, which would have allowed him to understand any discussions on this matter.
Questioning the need for overseas travel during a period of funding shortages, Mr D’Amato highlighted the instance wherein his manager travelled to London not long ago. He voiced his incredulity at his manager’s repeated visits to a trade show in America during such a time. In response, Mr Maguire emphasised the low-cost of their travels, and how essential such trips were for their global expansion.
Justifying the absence of needless extravagance in these trips, Mr Maguire denied any frivolous trips to places like Vegas or staying in high-end accommodations.
Commenting on his financial losses post-dismissal, Mr D’Amato expressed that he remained unemployed since his hearing in February, and that he wasn’t provided with a written reference by his former employer. Responding to this, Mr Maguire pointed out the challenge in finding sales personnel of Mr D’Amato’s caliber in Ireland. However, he questioned the extent of difficulty Mr D’Amato had in finding similar roles elsewhere.
Regarding the issue of reference, Mr Maguire clarified his stand of not providing written references to any employees, throughout his career. He assured his willingness to provide verbal references whenever required, mentioning that Mr D’Amato had his contact information for such communications.
On Thursday, adjudicator David James Murphy published a determination acknowledging that TripAdmit could have potentially lawfully made Mr D’Amato redundant, given the company was facing challenges and restructuring its business model. Despite this, Mr Murphy noted that the termination letter had not been precise in establishing whether the company’s struggling performance or Mr D’Amato’s purported incompetence was the reason for his dismissal.
The adjudicator highlighted that TripAdmit’s letter seemed to infer that Mr D’Amato was being laid off because his client base was unprofitable, which might have been connected to his performance somehow. However, the company had neither mentioned redundancy nor produced any document to show they had previously addressed performance-related concerns with Mr D’Amato.
Mr Murphy further pointed out the company’s lack of clarity on the actual grounds for dismissal even at the point of hearing. Consequently, he concluded that TripAdmit had been unable to provide sufficient grounds for discharging Mr D’Amato, implying that the claim must be accepted.
Moreover, Mr Murphy stated that the TripAdmit was partially responsible for Mr D’Amato’s loss of earnings, having refused to provide a written reference unjustifiably. However, he noted it would be injudicious to assume that this loss of earnings would go on for two years, the maximum time he could consider, and thus limited the compensation to one year’s salary.
Mr D’Amato was consequently awarded €42,000 to account for his losing his job.