Social media giant X, formerly known as Twitter, appeared before the Labour Court on Monday to challenge a landmark €550,131 unfair dismissal award made to former executive Gary Rooney.
Rooney, who served as Director of Source to Pay, was dismissed in December 2022 after failing to respond to an email from X owner Elon Musk. The email, sent in November shortly after Musk’s takeover, asked employees to click “yes” if they intended to remain with the company under a new “hardcore” regime requiring “long hours at high intensity.”
In a 2023 ruling, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that Rooney had been unfairly dismissed. The case has now reached the Labour Court on appeal, with both sides presenting starkly contrasting versions of events.
Appearing in court, Rooney described an atmosphere of “uncertainty, fear and anxiety” following Musk’s takeover. He recounted being abruptly instructed to stop paying suppliers, and said the situation had become “stressful” and “emotional.” He claimed he never received a clear explanation of the consequences of not responding to Musk’s email and maintained he did not believe his silence equated to resignation.
“I had invested a lot in my career at Twitter,” Rooney said. “Being given 12 hours to make a decision of that magnitude was not reasonable.”
His barrister, Padraic Lyons SC, said Rooney was effectively dismissed without warning, calling the situation “a paradigm case of direct unfair dismissal.” He claimed Rooney remained out of work for nine months and only later secured a lower-paying job. Lyons argued for the maximum possible award under the Unfair Dismissals Act — two years’ remuneration — which he calculated at €689,406.
In response, X’s counsel, Cathy Smith SC, argued that Rooney had not been dismissed but had chosen to leave the company. She characterised Musk’s email not as a termination notice but as an “enhanced severance offer,” stating it was up to each employee to opt in or out of the new employment terms.
Smith said Rooney clearly understood the implications and acted accordingly, even bidding farewell to colleagues. She noted that he remained on the company payroll for a month but never raised concerns or requested to return to work.
Smith also challenged the financial figures presented by Rooney’s legal team, questioning the inclusion of discretionary bonuses and restricted stock units in the compensation calculation.
The court has reserved its decision, with a ruling expected in the coming months. The outcome could have broader implications for how abrupt workplace restructurings and communication from leadership are interpreted under employment law.
