The chief executive of a veterinary business has told a tribunal that he has “never heard of a veterinary surgeon on the dole”, with lawyers arguing that the firm’s unfairly dismissed former clinical director was choosing new jobs that suited her desire to work and give childcare to her daughter.
“I’m not choosing, that’s my family,” the complainant Annie Baltz said in reply.
The company’s position is that Ms Baltz failed to mitigate her losses when she was left out of work and is not entitled to pursue the company for them.
The tribunal heard Ms Baltz, a qualified vet with 12 years’ experience, was sacked without notice in March 2024 by CVS (Ireland) Veterinary Service No. 2 Ltd after a company investigation found against her on a bullying complaint.
The company conceded that the dismissal was procedurally flawed last year following Ms Baltz’somplaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The firm has since changed its registered name to GVE Vets (Ireland) No. 2 Ltd, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard evidence yesterday on Ms Baltz’ losses, and her efforts to secure alternative employment after losing her €103,000-a-year job overseeing two practices in the Leinster area and a night vet service.
Ms Baltz’ barrister, Hugh O’Flaherty BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Glenn Cooper, said the background to the dismissal was a previous complaint against his client in early 2023 that led to an internal investigation commencing in March that year into the procurement of a fire alarm system.
Ms Baltz said she had been served with a written warning for that matter as a disciplinary sanction in July that year. A further allegation about the procurement of furnishings had been dropped from the probe when she pointed out it had been “ithin my budget to decide that” she added.
“I believe the fire alarm, the Ikea situation, was an attempt to get me out of the company… so I made a complaint for bullying and harassment,” the complainant said.
She added that she had to take a fortnight off work due to stress around this time.
When two fellow employees made complaints against Ms Baltz on 11 September 2023, she was suspended two days later, Mr O’Flaherty submitted.
Mr O’Flaherty put it to her that the company investigation concluded that there was “no harassment, but they do find bullying”.
“Yes, correct,” Ms Baltz said.
The complainant was dismissed with immediate effect on 13 March 2024 and was out of work until she took up new employment on 1 July that year, the tribunal heard.
In the meantime, she exercised her right to appeal the dismissal, which was rejected by her former employer, and applied for a number of vacancies.
The list of job titles in the applications disclosed to the hearing included a position as veterinary business manager with a pharmaceutical group, assistant professorship at a veterinary school, a technical consultant at pharmaceutical firm specialising in animal medicines and a veterinary care director.
Ms Baltz said she pursued roles she believed would give her “the same flexibility” to work from home and attend to childcare which she had in the clinical director role she lost, and ultimately took up a post as operations director at a veterinary group.
Questioned on why she had not sought new work as a veterinary surgeon, the complainant said she had a daughter to collect at 3.30pm each afternoon. She added that she did not expect to be ready to resume a full-time clinical role as a veterinary surgeon until her younger son had enters secondary school in 12 years’ time.
Counsel for the respondent Mary-Paula Guinness BL, put it to her that she was “choosing jobs that suit the fact that you want to work and give chlidcare to your daughter”.
“I’m not choosing, that’s my family,” Ms Baltz said.
GVE Vets chief executive James Cahill in evidence said that he believed Ms Baltz “applied for a range of jobs for which she was completely unqualified” in the period of her unemployment.
“I believe if she’d presented that CV as a highly qualified, experienced veterinary surgeon, she would have got a job as a veterinary surgeon very, very quickly,” he said, adding that the complainant could also have “mitigated her losses with locum work”.
“I have never heard – and I qualified in 1989 – I have never heard of a veterinary surgeon on the dole,” Mr Cahill said.
Mr Cahill was asked by Mr O’Flaherty whether Ms Baltz might have hoped to return to her position when she appealed her dismissal to his firm.
Mr Cahill said: “She may have been hopeful but… there were a whole series of grievances raised by Ms Baltz against pretty much anybody who had anything to do with her.”
He said six individuals and the company were currently subject to “a High Court case of some shape or form”.
Adjudication officer Louise Boyle heard closing submissions from the parties before closing the hearing, with her decision to issue in writing in due course.
