B7LW102: Evelyn commenced employment with Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd in 2016 as their Human Resources (HR) Manager, working two days a week: Employee Relations and the Law Assignment, DBS, Ireland

Evelyn commenced employment with Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd in 2016 as their Human Resources (HR) Manager, working two days a week. At the time of her appointment, there had been a number of employment law claims against the company, and the position of HR Manager was created to improve employment relations within the company. During the tenure of her appointment, a variety of employee issues arose, including both dismissal and redundancy, and no successful claims/employee grievances were ever raised against the company during this period.

In the course of her employment, there were numerous occasions when she and the Managing Director of the company, Donovan, would have conflicting views in relation to employee performance and disciplinary issues.  Evelyn always advised Donovan to act in a manner that she believed would minimize risk for the company, but despite this fact, Donovan disliked having his instructions questioned, and this created some tension between himself and Evelyn.

In 2019, Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd acquired a company in Galway, and following this acquisition Donovan met with Evelyn and requested that she become a full-time member of staff, working five days a week. Evelyn explained to Donovan that as a consequence of her family situation that she was not in a position to undertake full-time employment and that her contract terms specifically stated that she was employed in a part-time capacity.

She advised him that she would be happy to alter her contract to work four mornings a week, and to travel to Galway, when required, to deal with any employment issues that arose. Donovan was not happy about this and expressed his dissatisfaction to Evelyn, nonetheless, her proposed alteration to working hours was agreed upon and implemented.

In late 2021, Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd acquired another company in Wexford, and thereafter Donovan met with Evelyn and informed her that he required her to work in a full-time capacity for the company.  Evelyn once again explained that due to her family situation, this was not possible, but offered to work five mornings a week and be available to answer emails/phone calls one additional afternoon per week.

This was reluctantly agreed upon by Donovan, although Evelyn was aware that he was unhappy with her refusal.  Thereafter Donovan’s relationship with Evelyn deteriorated and on numerous occasions, she was excluded from management meetings (which she had previously attended), and Donovan would deliberately ignore her when she did attend meetings.  In December 2021 there was a two-week period in which he did not speak to her, or answer her calls or emails, despite the fact that their offices were on the same floor and she had tried to engage him in conversation on more than one occasion in the staff canteen.

In August 2022, one of Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd’s recently recruited senior sales executives terminated his employment and sent an email to Donovan stating that one of the reasons for his resignation was the fact that he believed that he was treated badly by the company, and citing numerous examples in this regard.  One of the examples cited was that he had not been issued a contract of employment for six weeks after his commencement date.

Thereafter, Donovan called Evelyn to a meeting, during which he shouted at her for 15 minutes, stating that her incompetence in issuing a contract was the reason that they had lost a staff member.  Evelyn tried to explain that she was not in a position to issue contracts until she had received the specific conditions of employment from the relevant line manager, who had recruited the staff member, and that in the particular situation that had arisen, she had emailed the relevant line manager on ten different occasions requesting this information.  Nonetheless, this meeting ended with Donovan shouting at Evelyn that if she was in the office five days a week, these issues would not arise.

In November 2022, Evelyn was called to a meeting with Donovan and informed that a full review of the Human Resource function within the company was to take place and that an independent consultancy company, Burrows Consulting, had been contracted for this purpose.  Donovan told Evelyn that she was to project manage this review. Consequently, she met with Burrows Consulting who informed her that they planned on issuing a questionnaire to all staff and conducting interviews with the senior management team, about the effectiveness of the HR function within the organization, and in particular, how it could be improved.  At this stage Evelyn was concerned that the purpose of this review was to paint her in a negative light as a consequence of her refusal to work full-time, so she asked to see a copy of the questionnaire and a list of the interview questions.

Despite this and numerous other requests, these were not forthcoming.  In late December 2022, Evelyn was asked to attend a director’s meeting of the company, and presented with a summary of the results of the questionnaires and interviews, which presented a negative picture of the operation of the HR function within the organization, with a general conclusion that management perceived HR to be more employee-focused than employer-focused.  At this meeting, Evelyn was asked by Donovan, in light of this feedback, whether she considered her continued employment within the company to be tenable.  Evelyn responded that she required a complete copy of the relevant data before she was in a position to comment.

Thereafter she contacted Burrows Consulting requesting a copy of the original data from the interviews and questionnaires, but this was refused, on the basis of confidentiality and data protection.  She notified Donovan of this fact, but he did not address it and instead sent her an email demanding that she prepare an appropriate response to the Burrows Consulting report, and notifying her that she needed to justify the basis for her continued employment with the company.

Arising from these events Evelyn’s anxiety levels increased exponentially, and she began suffering from constant insomnia, nausea, and migraines.  In January 2023, following receipt of an email from Donovan, in which he again reiterated that her position was no longer tenable and that in the circumstance a full-time HR Manager was required to overhaul what he considered to be an ineffective HR function, Evelyn collapsed at work.

She attended her doctor that same day and was diagnosed as suffering from acute stress.  She has been prescribed medication and certified as unfit for work for a period of four weeks.  However, despite the fact that Evelyn was on sick leave she would receive daily calls and emails from Donovan raising HR queries.  Unable to deal with Donovan, Evelyn emailed the Board on the 25^th of January, tendering her resignation with immediate effect.

However, she reconsidered this and on the 27^th of January, she sent an email to the Board of Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd retracting her resignation.  Unfortunately, Evelyn’s anxiety and stress levels caused her to suffer a psychotic episode the following day, resulting in her hospitalization for a period of four weeks in a mental health institution.  On 31^st January, Evelyn’s husband accepted a letter and package on her behalf from Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd.  The letter stated that Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd had accepted her resignation on the 25^th, and was enclosing her outstanding salary payment and entitlements.  The package included all of her personal items from her office.

Since her release from the hospital, Evelyn has received no further correspondence from Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd.  She recently met with her solicitor and outlined the sequence of events leading to her resignation.  She informed her that she believes that there were no performance-related issues with her and that the HR function was operating effectively in the company during her tenure of employment.  She expressed the view that the whole situation had been contrived to create a redundancy situation in respect of her part-time role or to force her to resign.  Her solicitor has since initiated a claim for compensation on her behalf against Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd.