Question

Case Part 1

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 every raised against the company during this period. In the course of her employment, there were numerous occasions when she and the Managing Director of 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 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 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 with 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 a reason that they had lost a staff member. Evelyn tried to explain that she was not in a position to issues 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.

Answer 1

This case presents a situation where Evelyn, the HR Manager of Hughes Timber Suppliers Ltd, had conflicts with the Managing Director, Donovan, regarding employee performance and disciplinary issues. Despite Evelyn's efforts to minimize risk for the company, Donovan disliked having his instructions questioned, leading to tension between them.

When the company acquired another company in Galway in 2019, Donovan requested that Evelyn become a full-time member of staff, which she declined due to her family situation. Instead, she offered to alter her contract to work four mornings a week and travel to Galway when needed. In late 2021, when the company acquired another company in Wexford, Donovan again requested that Evelyn work full-time, but she offered to work five mornings a week and be available for emails/phone calls one additional afternoon per week. Donovan reluctantly agreed, but their relationship deteriorated afterward, with Evelyn being excluded from management meetings and Donovan ignoring her.

In August 2022, a senior sales executive resigned and cited the company's poor treatment as one of the reasons, specifically mentioning the delay in receiving a contract of employment. Donovan then shouted at Evelyn for 15 minutes, blaming her for the loss of the staff member due to her incompetence in issuing the contract. Evelyn tried to explain that she was not in a position to issue contracts until she received the specific conditions of employment from the relevant line manager, but Donovan blamed her for not being in the office five days a week.

Overall, the case presents a situation where the company's acquisition of new companies and Donovan's requests for Evelyn to work full-time caused tension in their working relationship. Despite Evelyn's efforts to manage employee issues and minimize risk for the company, Donovan blamed her for the loss of a staff member and showed a lack of respect for her role and expertise.