EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Mariusz Zietek UD793/2015
against
Callinan Coaches
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B.L.
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Murphy
heard this claim at Galway on 12th October 2016, 26th January 2017 and 29th March 2017
Representation:
Claimant:
Ms Fidelma Bane, Fidelma T Bane, Solicitors,
The Plaza Offices, Headford Road, Galway
Respondent:
Ms Angela Woulfe, Clancy Solicitors, 11 Steele's Terrace, Lifford, Ennis, Co Clare
Background:
This case was a claim for constructive dismissal and as such the onus was on the claimant to demonstrate that he acted reasonably in his decision to resign from his position with the respondent.
The claimant argued that his workplace was unsafe and that after he fell victim to a workplace accident on 7th January 2015 he felt he could no longer continue to work there. In particular the claimant felt that a diesel powered washer with which he used to wash buses was smoky and hazardous. He had brought this to the attention of the respondent but felt that the issue was ignored. The claimant did not lodge a formal complaint or grievance before resigning on 15th January 2015.
The respondents contended that they were never given an opportunity to address any grievance that the claimant may have as he never formally raised any issue with his line manager or anyone else in the respondent company. It was common case that the claimant handed his work keys to a colleague saying he was leaving and that when his manager tried to contact him about this the claimant refused to engage with the manager.
Determination:
The Tribunal gave careful consideration to all the evidence adduced in this case of constructive dismissal over the course of three hearings.
Approximately two weeks after the workplace accident of the 7th January 2015, the claimant left his employment without any prior notification to the respondent. The claimant resigned by giving his keys to a work colleague, who in turn forwarded the keys to the operations co-ordinator, with whom the claimant refused to engage.
After the aforementioned accident the claimant never raised any complaint, grievance or health and safety issue under the grievance procedure set out in the employee handbook.
He failed to engage with the respondent or with the respondent’s external HR and Business Consultant, who met with all staff and made her contact details available to all staff, in relation to any employment issue.
There is an obligation on an employee to try to resolve whatever the problem is before walking out on the job. In particular, where there are agreed procedures for the resolution of disputes, these should be exhausted before more drastic measures are taken.
The Tribunal Applied the test of reasonableness: “was it reasonable for the employee in this case to act in this way?” The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy his complaints.
By reason of the foregoing and having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to have terminated his employment. Accordingly, his claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)