ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001240

Complaint/Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/02/2016

Venue: Tom Johnson House

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Sec 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 following the referral of the complaint /dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute. 

Background

The Complainant was employed as an Electrical Engineer from 1^st April 2008 to 5^th July 2015. He was paid €741.00 per week. He has claimed that he was constructively dismissed. He has sought compensation.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant’s representative stated that his employment was uneventful until 2011 when there was a change of manager. By November 2011 he wrote to the General Operations Manager about the way that he was being treated (details supplied). On 8^th December 2011 he wrote to the Company Director. A verbal warning had been issued to him and this became the subject of communication with the HR Manager. The problems continued. Numerous complaints both verbal and written were made about his manager but the Respondent did not address them. On 11^th & 12^th June 2013 he asked that the reporting relationship be changed but this was not acceptable. On 13^th June 2013 the Respondent issued a memo on the “Workshop Management and Supervision”. This required him to report to the person who was causing the problems on a daily basis. Over the next year the working environment was unhealthy and unsupportive. On 23^rd June his manager made a complaint of bullying at work whereby it was alleged that he was trying to undermine him. On 26^th June 2014 he sent a statement under the Grievance Procedure to the Director complaining about his manager. He was offered counselling on a voluntary and confidential basis. He replied in writing refuting the allegations made by his manager against him. On 15^th December 2014 he received a mail about an investigation into training being provided for the Apprentices. He went out sick in January/February 2015 due to workplace related stress. He has suffered because of the failure of the Respondent to take his concerns seriously and to investigate them. He did not return to work. He had no option but to resign his position as his mental and physical health was deteriorating and the Respondent did not address any of his concerns. He has suffered financial loss as a result of this. He found work on 20^th July 2015 on a similar remuneration package. He is seeking compensation.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent has treated him well over the years and he held a crucial position in the company. He was facilitated with time and finance to deal with some of his personal issues.

He first raised a complaint in June 2012 about his manager. He made a complaint to the Director in April 2013 and he lodged a formal complaint against his manager on 26^th June 2014. Each of these complaints was dealt with to his satisfaction. In December 2012 he mailed the Director stating, “Also a special thanks for the help and support that I received from yourselves and the company”. In February 2013 he mailed “also thanks to (his manager) for making it (works night out) “. On 11^th November 2013 he mailed the Operations Manager stating “the air was cleared” with MP and “That was the end of my misunderstanding”. On 26^th June 2014 he made a formal complaint against his manager. On 23^rd June his manager had made a formal complaint against him. The Respondent addressed these and decoded to change the reporting structure. His manager was to deal with maintenance matters and the Garage Manager was to deal with HR issues. By September 2014 the Complainant told the General Manager that things were much better. The Complainant never raised another complaint prior to his resignation. On 15^th December 2014 the Complainant was invited to attend an investigation into the training of two Apprentices. This was then escalated to a disciplinary investigation in February 2015. The hearing was rescheduled to 12trh March 2015. The Complainant went out sick on 20^th February 2015 and did not return to work. On 25^th June 2015 he indicated that he was seeking alternative employment and sought a reference, which was given to him on 26^th June. On 5^th July 2015 he met a manager and resigned as he had a job in England. At no time during this meeting and a subsequent one did he raise any complaint or while he was on sick leave. A letter of resignation was received on 6^th July 2015. The Respondent in writing asked him to reconsider his resignation and to use the grievance procedure. The Complainant replied and confirmed his resignation.

The Complainant resigned his position as a result of being invited to attend a disciplinary hearing. It had nothing to do with his previous complaints. This claim should fail.

Findings

I note that this claim is taken under the Industrial Relations Acts.

I find that this case may be informed by the Unfair Dismissals Acts in respect of constructive dismissals cases.

I note that the last formal grievance was made in 2014.

I note that the Respondent endeavoured to deal with the relationship problems by changing the reporting structures.

I note that the Complainant acknowledged that progress had been made.

I note that he went out sick on 20^th February 2015 and did not return to work. He resigned on 5^th July 2015.

I note that he did not raise any issues with the Respondent during his absence whilst on sick leave.

I note that he did not raise any issue while in discussions with management in June and July, which led to his resignation.

I note that upon receipt of the letter of resignation and the raising of issues the Respondent requested that the Complainant withdraw the resignation and have the matter looked into.

I note that he declined this.

I find that the Complainant has not established that the conduct of the Respondent was such that he had no option but to resign his position.

I find that he did not give the Respondent an opportunity to address his concerns.

I find that the Complainant has not established a case that he had no option but to resign his position.

Decisions of the Employment Appeals Tribunal that have informed this type of case:

In this type of a claim as in a constructive dismissal claim the burden of proof shifts to the person making the claim. They also have to demonstrate that they were justified in their decision and it was reasonable for them to resign. The claimant needs to demonstrate that they have no option but to resign. In addition there must have to be something wrong with the employer’s conduct.

The following decisions have informed the Adjudication Services on matters similar to this case:

In the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) Tierney v DER Ireland Ltd UD866/1999 “central to this is that she shows that she has pursued to a reasonable extent all internal avenues of appeal without a satisfactory or reasonable outcome having been achieved

In the EAT case John Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd [UD720/2006] it stated, “We find that the claimant did not exhaustthe grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case…In constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”.

The EAT in Donnegan Vs Co Limerick VEC UD828/2011 stated,”In particular, the claimant must show that the respondent acted in such a way that no ordinary person, could or would continue in the workplace”. Also the respondent’s conduct was “not so unfair or so damaging to the claimant’s rights and entitlements that she hid no option but to resign her position”

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have decided that this claim was not well founded and that it should fail

Dated:   26^th April 2016