A highly paid executive was sacked when bosses realised they couldn?t afford to give her the pay rise they promised, an employment tribunal heard.

Grace Ejiga was told to expect a salary increase before the company?s cash reserves fell and she became ?too expensive,? a hearing was told.

Olive Jar Digital, a London-based digital information company, tried to claim Ms Ejiga?s performance had worsened in order to avoid giving her the raise, claiming she had committed ?gross misconduct?.

She realised the company no longer wanted to employ her and began to negotiate her departure, but during the discussions she was fired, the tribunal heard.

Now Ms Ejiga has won ?25,014.01 in compensation after successfully suing for unfair dismissal.

The central London tribunal heard she worked in the senior leadership team at Olive Jar from April 2021 as a bid manager, covering all tendering processes.

She was promoted to head of bid management in July that year, with her pay rising to ?80,000 to prevent her leaving to take up a role elsewhere.

Ms Ejiga was the company?s highest-paid employee, and earned a commission of 5 per cent of net profit on all bids won by her team plus annual discretionary bonuses.

In performance development reviews, Ms Ejiga consistently received ?very good? feedback, including that her work was ?of the very highest standard?.

In October 2023, Ms Ejiga was told a request she had made for a pay review was being considered.

The tribunal heard the company then experienced a ?large drop in its cash reserves? in 2024, and it was decided that Ms Ejiga did not deserve a pay rise after all.

She was put on a performance improvement plan (Pip) because, according to Rajesh Thakrar, the founding director, Ms Ejiga had over-delegated tasks to colleagues.

?Only one complaint?

He also claimed there were issues related to ?communications?, a long period of ?no wins? and that listing herself as available to do consultancy work on LinkedIn was interfering with her work.

Employment judge Tamara Lewis said: ?My impression is that the strongest factor was a desire to withdraw from the promise of a pay rise and press her to win more bids ? financially driven.

?The evidence about complaints by colleagues was very weak. I was shown only one written document of complaint... written on the day of the Pip meeting.?

A meeting in April 2024 was the first time Ms Ejiga was told there were any concerns about her performance.

The tribunal heard this was a ?considerable shock? as her feedback had been ?glowing? for so long.

She did not agree there was any need for her to make improvements, and was given an unreasonable deadline to give a response to the plan.

The company also claimed that she had taken a ?significant? amount of time off in lieu the previous year when she had only taken four days.

The tribunal heard: ?[Ms Ejiga] did not believe the Pip was genuine or that [Olive Jar]?s motives were benevolent given the way the matter had been handled and the pressure she was now being put under.

?She felt that her side of matters had not even been considered.

?As a result of the way [Olive Jar] had handled matters, she believed that the company had decided it was too expensive to give her a pay rise and wanted her out of the company.?

Negotiations began in May 2024 over the end of her employment because Ms Ejiga wanted to have an honest conversation about the terms for her leaving, a panel was told.

Mr Thakrar said the company would send a draft settlement agreement to discuss and asked Ms Ejiga to complete a final tender she?d been working on.

She provided a handover note on May 3 which the company would later claim was a resignation announcement. Mr Thakrar told the tribunal he was ?shocked? she was ?suddenly upping and leaving?.

Negotiations broke down as the relationship between Ms Ejiga and Olive Jar soured, and the company claimed she had committed gross misconduct by using her email to carry out other work during her employment.

?Very little analysis?

The tribunal found Mr Thakrar had in fact done ?very little analysis? of the documents he had seen to determine if she had done anything wrong.

It also decided the company ?did not come even close? to giving evidence of ?ordinary misconduct, let alone gross misconduct?, and that instead it gave the impression of ?seeking to build a case against an employee in anticipation of unfair dismissal proceedings?.

Ms Ejiga was dismissed on May 21 2024, the panel found.

Judge Lewis concluded: ?The company by this time believed the relationship had broken down and did not want [Ms Ejiga] back.

?Rather than have to find legitimate grounds for dismissal and go through a proper process, [Olive Jar] tried to reinterpret events to suggest [Ms Ejiga] had already resigned.

?I therefore find that [Ms Ejiga] was dismissed with immediate effect on May 21 2024.

?As [Olive Jar] has not proved a reason for dismissal, the dismissal is therefore unfair.?

She was awarded ?3,425 for unfair dismissal, ?18,288.82 for wrongful dismissal and ?3,300.19 for unauthorised deductions. (The Telegraph, UK)

Update news