Highest-paid employee sacked after ‘company realised it couldn’t afford her pay rise’

A former executive at a company has been awarded compensation after she was sacked when the business realised it 'couldn't afford her pay rise'.

Grace Ejiga was part of the senior leadership at the digital consultancy firm, but when the employee waited for a pay rise that was promised to her, she was sacked, an employment tribunal has heard.

She was the highest-paid executive at Olive Jar Digital, a London-based company, but following a year that saw the business' cash reserves take a dip, the move was deemed 'too expensive'.

During an employment tribunal that took place at London Central in December 2024, it was found that Ejiga was wrongfully dismissed and that the company made 'unauthorised deductions' from her pay in the weeks leading up to her sacking on 21 May, 2024.

Since joining the company in April 2021 as a bid manager, she had never received any criticism of her work, until April 2024.

The executive believed that she was wrongfully dismissed (Getty Stock Image)

In a meeting, the company claimed that her performance had dropped and she had committed 'gross misconduct'.

During negotiations around her departure, she was fired, the tribunal was told.

Following the hearing, Ejiga has been awarded £25,014.01 in compensation for her unfair dismissal, three years after her salary rose to £80,000 to prevent her from looking elsewhere.

As the company's highest-paid employee at the time, she earned a commission of five percent of net profit on all bids that were won by her team, as well as annual bonuses.

Months after a request made by Ejiga for a pay review in October 2023, she was put on a performance improvement plan (Pip), as founding director Rajest Thkrar claimed she had over-delegated certain tasks.

He would further claim that there were issues related to 'communications' after she offered to do consultancy work on employment-focused social media platform, LinkedIn.

“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,” employment judge Tamara Lewis stated.

She added: “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.”

After being criticised for her performance in 2024, Ejiga believed there was no need to make improvements and was given a hard deadline to meet for the plan.

Olive Jar Digital further claimed she had taken a 'significant' amount of time off, even though she only took 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.”

Ejiga wanted an honest conversation about her leaving the company and Thakrar said they would send a draft settlement agreement across. He also asked her to complete a final tender she had been across.

After passing over a handover note on 3 May last year, the company took it as a resignation announcement, as Thakrar told the tribunal he was 'shocked' at her leaving.

The tribunal found that the company was anticipating a wrongful dismissal hearing (Getty Stock Image)

It was found by the tribunal that Thakrar had done 'very little analysis' of the documents, as the company also 'did not come even close to providing evidence that the claimant was guilty of ordinary misconduct, let alone gross misconduct'.

It also gave the impression the company was 'seeking to build a case against an employee in anticipation of unfair dismissal proceedings'.

“The company by this time believed the relationship had broken down and did not want [Ms Ejiga] back,” Judge Lewis said.

She continued: “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.”

In total, Ejiga was awarded £3,425 for unfair dismissal, £18,288.82 for wrongful dismissal and £3,300.19 for unauthorised deductions, totalling £25,014.01.

A spokesperson for Olive Jar Digital said to LADbible: “We acknowledge the recent Employment Tribunal judgment regarding a former employee. While we respect the outcome, we are disappointed by the decision and believe it does not reflect the full context.

“The case centred around long-standing performance concerns, including a period of over 12 months without any deliverables. A performance improvement plan was proposed as a constructive step forward, but this was declined. The employee subsequently submitted a handover note and left the business.

"We remain focused on moving forward and continuing to foster a fair, respectful and high-performing workplace.”