PR manager challenges 'unprofessional' dismissal from Cork architects firm
Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the court that his employment is valid, and not subsisting and that the decision to remove him is null, void and no effect. Picture: Laura Hutton/RollingNews.ie
A marketing and public relations manager with a firm of architects has brought a High Court action aimed at preventing the termination of his employment.
The action has been brought by Gregory Higgins, who last year was hired as marketing and public relations manager with AIT Architecture Ltd, trading as Meitheal Design Partners.
The defendant had a registered address in Kenmare, Co Kerry, but its main office is in the South Mall in Cork City.
Mr Higgins from Courthill, Lyre, Carrignavar, Cork, claims the unilateral termination of his employment is both unprofessional and breaches his contractual rights.
The court heard the company rejects his claims and says his employment was lawfully terminated.
It also claims that despite the defendant's best efforts, multiple issues arose giving rise to his purported termination.
Solicitors for the defendant have also warned Mr Higgins that any interference with the firm's business brand, reputation or profile would be dealt with in a robust manner.
Mr Higgins says he is at a loss to understand the defendant's suggestions and denies any wrongdoing.
Mark Connaughton SC, for Mr Higgins, said it is his client's case that he is entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.
On commencing work for the firm in May 2021, his client was required to complete a three-month probationary period of employment.
That period expired last August.
No review was carried out by his employer, and counsel said Mr Higgins continued to carry out his duties without complaint or criticism.
However, difficulties arose with company director between September and December of last year.
In a sworn statement to the court, Mr Higgins said the issues included that he was wrongly blamed by the company's director Patrick O'Toole in relation to the renewal of the company's insurance.
Mr Higgins said the renewal of the policy fell outside his duties.
Mr Higgins said Mr O'Toole was also critical of his written communication, and over spelling mistakes on a document, that Mr Higgins said he did not make.
He said arising out of that, Mr O'Toole asked in the open office if there was "a guillotine within the office" and directed that "all future spelling mistakes would be punished by chopping off fingers".
Mr O'Toole also introduced a "non-fragrance policy" in the office and told staff that if they "wore a scent" they would "face disciplinary action".
Mr Higgins said O'Toole told him if he found the person "wearing Lynx", they would "be removed through a window".
In his affidavit, Mr Higgins said he was criticised by Mr O'Toole for not publicising company announcements.
At one point, he said Mr O'Toole said he was "unsure as to what the plaintiff had been doing in the company for the last six months".
These and other incidents, Mr Higgins said, resulted in him going out on sick leave for a period.
Mr Higgins said late last month he was informed that the company had decided not to continue his employment beyond an extended probationary period.
He claims his probationary period was never extended by the company. He claims that he was not afforded any opportunity to discuss the matter and was not afforded any reason or due process.
No investigation was ever carried out, and he could not challenge the decision.
He claims that following the completion of the three-month probationary period, his position at the company was permanent.
The defendant's referral to an extended probationary period is being used to avoid the express terms contained in his contract of employment.
Mr Higgins seeks orders restraining the defendant from terminating his contract of employment and that the defendant is restrained from appointing any other person to carry out his duties at the firm.
He also seeks a declaration from the court that his employment is valid, and not subsisting and that the decision to remove him is null, void and no effect.
The matter came before Mr Justice Senan Allen on Wednesday.
The judge, on an ex-parte (one side only) basis, granted Mr Higgins permission to serve short notice of the proceedings on the defendant company.
The judge said he was not prepared at this stage of the proceedings to grant an injunction preventing the defendant from appointing any other person from carrying out his duties.
The judge acknowledged Mr Higgins had concerns arising out of an advert posted by the company in December, that somebody else at the company would be hired to carry out his role.
However, the judge said the wording of the order sought was too "vague", and the court was not prepared to grant it on an ex-parte basis.
The judge agreed the matter should be given a short return date and adjourned the case for a week.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
