WRC awards €183k to ex-CEO who blocked payments to director

The Workplace Relations Commission has delivered a landmark ruling in favour of a former construction chief executive, awarding him in excess of €180,000 following a highly contentious unfair dismissal case. Conor Gilligan, the former head of County Kildare-based Derrin Group Management Ltd, was summarily dismissed from his €200,000-a-year position after he actively opposed the transfer of millions of euros to a company director. The controversy arose during a critical period when unpaid subcontractors had downed tools, bringing lucrative construction projects to a grinding halt.

A Resounding Victory at the Workplace Relations Commission

In a comprehensive decision that heavily criticised the corporate governance of the construction firm, the Workplace Relations Commission ordered Derrin Group Management Ltd to pay Mr Gilligan a total of €183,426.28. The tribunal found absolutely no justification for the executive’s termination. Adjudication officer Bríd Deering delivered a scathing assessment of the company’s actions, officially declaring that the former chief executive’s professional conduct was entirely beyond reproach. The ruling highlights the severe legal consequences companies face when they bypass standard employment procedures and dismiss senior executives without due process or a fair hearing.

The Genesis of the Corporate Dispute

The origins of this boardroom battle trace back to 2022 when Conor Gilligan was officially appointed as the chief executive officer of Derrin Group Management Ltd. At that time, a corporate entity known as Teamport Ltd acquired a fifty per cent stake in the construction business, effectively becoming its primary shareholder. To facilitate the company’s ambitious growth and operational requirements, Teamport advanced substantial loans amounting to €15 million. Consequently, the directors of Teamport Ltd were appointed to the board of Derrin Group Management Ltd, intertwining the financial and operational governance of the two entities. Initially, the relationship appeared to function smoothly, but underlying financial pressures soon began to fracture the boardroom dynamics.

Cash Flow Crisis and Subcontractor Walkouts

Despite the fact that all of the construction firm’s ongoing development projects were fundamentally profitable, the tribunal heard that the company began experiencing severe and periodic cash flow issues between 2022 and 2024. By the time 2024 arrived, these liquidity bottlenecks had escalated into a matter of considerable concern for the chief executive. Mr Gilligan provided evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission that essential subcontractors were routinely being denied payment or were not being prioritised for settlement. This financial mismanagement at the corporate level directly impacted the building sites, resulting in frustrated subcontractors downing their tools and walking off the job. These work stoppages inevitably caused significant project delays, which in turn began to severely erode the company’s profit margins.

Controversial Director Payments Uncovered

The crisis reached a tipping point when Mr Gilligan discovered highly irregular financial transfers. The tribunal was informed that sums of €1 million and €2.3 million had been abruptly paid out to Teamport Ltd. The situation became even more alarming when the chief executive learned that these substantial payments were ultimately being directed into the personal bank account of one of the Teamport directors. Acting on his fiduciary duty to the construction firm, Mr Gilligan immediately instructed Derrin’s chief financial officer to halt any further payments to that specific director. He further directed the finance department to strictly prioritise the payment of construction-related creditors and vulnerable subcontractors over all other corporate expenditure. This decisive financial strategy was formally agreed upon at a board meeting convened on the eleventh of September, 2024.

Mounting VAT Concerns and the Boardroom Showdown

The decision to freeze the director’s payments provoked an immediate and hostile response. Just five days after the board meeting, the director in question sent an email to Mr Gilligan, vehemently complaining that ordinary creditors were being paid ahead of him. When the chief executive reminded the director of the company’s legal and moral obligation to pay its suppliers, the director reportedly retorted that the money belonged to him and he would do with it exactly as he pleased. Adding to the chief executive’s mounting anxieties was a significant outstanding tax liability. Mr Gilligan raised urgent concerns regarding the delayed or non-payment of Value Added Tax arising from recent house sales, an amount totalling €2.6 million. This massive liability was compounded by an existing legacy VAT debt of €3.6 million owed directly to the Revenue Commissioners. When Mr Gilligan attempted to call a dedicated board meeting to address these critical tax liabilities, the aggrieved director flatly refused to permit the gathering.

The Extraordinary General Meeting and Summary Dismissal

Determined to protect the company’s interests, the chief executive formally documented his grave concerns regarding the escalating VAT bills in writing. In direct retaliation, the opposing board members convened an extraordinary general meeting in October 2024, explicitly tabling a motion for his immediate removal as chief executive officer. On the eighth of November, 2024, the day the extraordinary general meeting took place, Mr Gilligan chose to recuse himself from the proceedings. In his absence, the shareholders voted to summarily dismiss him without contractual notice, citing gross misconduct. The company retroactively levelled a series of serious allegations against him, including purported financial mismanagement of a specific development site, allegedly doubling the projected costs of a creche facility on land he personally owned, and claims that he had deliberately and consistently misled the board of directors. Mr Gilligan vehemently denied these accusations at the tribunal, describing them as entirely absurd and completely unfounded, noting he was never afforded any opportunity to respond to the charges prior to his termination.

The Workplace Relations Commission Hearing

When the dispute finally reached the Workplace Relations Commission for formal hearings, the proceedings took a dramatic turn. The three Teamport directors who had orchestrated the chief executive’s dismissal conspicuously failed to attend either of the scheduled hearings. Legal representatives acting on behalf of the construction company attempted to excuse their absence by claiming that all three individuals were simultaneously dealing with personal or family-related health matters on those specific dates. However, the tribunal explicitly noted that the company’s legal team failed to furnish any medical evidence whatsoever to substantiate these highly convenient claims. Furthermore, Derrin’s chief operations officer, Pat McCarthy, provided testimony confirming that the unilateral decision to dismiss Mr Gilligan was driven entirely by those three absent Teamport directors.

The Adjudicator’s Verdict: Conduct Beyond Reproach

Adjudication officer Bríd Deering delivered a decisive and unequivocal ruling in favour of the ousted chief executive. She formally determined that the construction company had completely failed to present any credible evidence, let alone substantial grounds, that could possibly justify the draconian decision to dismiss him. In her written determination, she explicitly stated her satisfaction that the complainant’s professional conduct was ‘beyond reproach’, firmly rejecting the company’s defensive stance that Mr Gilligan had somehow contributed to his own dismissal. To compensate for the egregious breach of employment law, she awarded him €125,581.94 for the unfair dismissal itself, noting that approximately three-fifths of this sum was calculated to cover his projected future financial losses as he transitioned to new employment.

Broader Implications for Corporate Governance

In addition to the primary award for unfair dismissal, the adjudicator ordered the company to pay a further €57,844.28 to cover the six months of contractual notice that had been unlawfully withheld upon his termination. The cumulative award of €183,426.28 represents a significant financial penalty for the construction firm. Legal experts and industry observers suggest that this landmark ruling serves as a stark warning to corporate boards across the sector. It underscores the absolute necessity of adhering to fair procedures, respecting fiduciary duties, and maintaining transparent financial practices, particularly when managing large-scale creditor obligations and statutory tax liabilities. The case clearly demonstrates that the Workplace Relations Commission will not hesitate to severely penalise companies that attempt to silence executives who raise legitimate concerns regarding corporate financial mismanagement.