A highly paid executive was dismissed after her employers realized they could not afford the pay raise they had promised her, an employment tribunal heard.

Grace Ejiga was assured of a salary increase before the company’s financial situation worsened, making her “too expensive” to retain, according to the hearing. Olive Jar Digital a London-based digital information company, attempted to justify her dismissal by alleging her performance had declined and accusing her of “gross misconduct.”

Ms. Ejiga soon realized the company no longer wished to employ her and began negotiating her departure. However, during these discussions, she was unexpectedly fired. Following a legal battle, she successfully sued for unfair dismissal and was awarded £25,014.01 in compensation.

The tribunal, held in central London, heard that Ms. Ejiga had been a senior leader at Olive Jar since April 2021, working as a bid manager overseeing all tendering processes. She was promoted to head of bid management in July of that year, and her salary was increased to £80,000 to prevent her from accepting a job elsewhere.

As the company’s highest-paid employee, she earned a commission of five percent on net profits from bids won by her team, in addition to discretionary annual bonuses. Her performance reviews consistently praised her work as “of the very highest standard.”

In October 2023, she was informed that her request for a pay review was under consideration. However, by 2024, Olive Jar had suffered a significant drop in cash reserves and decided against giving her the raise.

The company then placed her on a performance improvement plan, claiming she had over-delegated tasks to colleagues. Rajesh Thakrar, the founding director, also cited concerns about her communication skills, a lack of recent bid wins, and her LinkedIn profile listing her availability for consultancy work.

READ ALSO: Tribunal dismisses AA petition against APC

Employment Judge Tamara Lewis determined that financial concerns were the primary reason for the company’s actions. She noted that the evidence of complaints from colleagues was weak, with only one written complaint presented, which was dated the same day as the performance improvement meeting.

Ms. Ejiga was first informed of concerns about her performance during an April 2024 meeting. The tribunal heard that this came as a “considerable shock” since her feedback had been consistently positive. She disagreed with the necessity of the performance improvement plan and was given an unreasonable deadline to respond.

The company also accused her of taking a “significant” amount of time off in lieu, despite records showing she had only taken four days.

The tribunal found that Ms. Ejiga believed Olive Jar was trying to force her out because they could not afford her pay raise. In May 2024, she initiated discussions about leaving on agreed terms. During negotiations, Mr. Thakrar said the company would draft a settlement agreement and asked her to complete a final tender.

She submitted a handover note on May 3, which the company later claimed was a resignation letter. Mr. Thakrar told the tribunal he was “shocked” by her apparent decision to leave suddenly. However, negotiations broke down as tensions escalated.

The company then accused her of gross misconduct for allegedly using her work email for other tasks. The tribunal found that Mr. Thakrar conducted “very little analysis” of the evidence and had not substantiated any claims against her. It concluded that the company had failed to provide proof of misconduct and appeared to be building a case against her in anticipation of an unfair dismissal lawsuit.

Ms. Ejiga was officially dismissed on May 21, 2024. Judge Lewis determined that by this point, the company had decided the relationship had broken down and no longer wanted to retain her. Rather than follow a proper dismissal process, they attempted to reinterpret events to make it seem as though she had resigned.

The tribunal ruled the dismissal unfair and awarded Ms. Ejiga £3,425 for unfair dismissal, £18,288.82 for wrongful dismissal, and £3,300.19 for unauthorized deductions.

Crediblenewsng.com