The High Court has refused to order the return to work of a former Rathcormac store manager who is challenging the end of her employment, but has barred her former employer from filling her position or publicly communicating that she is no longer connected with the company while her case proceeds.
In a judgment delivered on 23 February 2023, Mr Justice Dignam said Anna Buttimer had established a strong case that allegations about her conduct contributed to her termination and that she was not given a fair opportunity to address them. The judge stressed that these were interlocutory findings: the disputes of fact remain for trial.
Ms Buttimer began working for Oak Fuel Supermarket Limited, trading as Costcutter Rathcormac, in March 2022. She was formally appointed store manager in April. The employer said it ended her employment during probation because of performance problems and because she was not the right fit for the store. Ms Buttimer said the decision followed allegations of misconduct, including complaints about how she spoke about a colleague. An investigation into earlier allegations was still under way.
The judge found there was a strong case that the more recent allegations formed at least part of the termination decision. He noted that the employer’s operations manager acknowledged discussing them with Ms Buttimer and referred to a “multiplicity of issues” when explaining the decision. The judgment also observed that the employer produced no contemporaneous records of the performance feedback it said it had given her. The judge concluded that the alleged conduct could amount to misconduct, for which fair procedures may be required even during probation. He did not decide whether the earlier investigation had to be completed before the termination.
The employer had indicated it would offer Ms Buttimer a trainee manager role at its Grenagh store under new terms, with a new probation period. The judge treated this as an offer for the purpose of assessing the application, while noting that the parties disputed its status and details. He found her failure to respond directly to the employer was relevant to the balance of convenience and the state of the working relationship.
The court refused orders that would have required the company to treat Ms Buttimer as still employed, return her to work, or continue paying her salary and benefits. The judge cited a serious rift between the parties and the risk of requiring them to work together. He also said the salary claim could be pursued as back pay or damages if she succeeds, subject to the employer’s argument that her entitlement may be limited to one week’s notice.
To limit potential reputational harm pending trial, the court ordered that the employer not appoint another person to her position or communicate that she is no longer connected with the company. The judge proposed that the parties agree an expedited timetable for pleadings and discovery, with the case to return to court for directions.