Parties:

Complainant Anonymised Parties Respondent

Warehouse Operative Manufacturing Plant

Representatives

Gerard Nevin Keaney Nevin Solicitors Declan Thomas IBEC

Complaint(s):

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00003067-001 07/03/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00003067-002 07/03/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 CA-00003067-003 07/03/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00003067-004 07/03/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 CA-00003067-005 07/03/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [ and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 and/or Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information)Act 1994, and/or Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport )(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities )Regulations 2012}, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Terms of Employment (Information)Act 1994

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to issue him with written terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. He asserted that the employee guidelines issued post his dismissal did not constitute a contract of employment and it was advanced that the claimant had not previously been furnished with same. In his direct evidence , the claimant categorically denied receiving these guidelines. It was submitted that the respondent’s representative had suggested at the first hearing in July 2016 that the claimant had received a workplace handbook in 1990 but had been unable to produce same – it was advanced that the document later relied upon by the respondent was undated , unsigned and was not accepted by the claimant as being the terms and conditions relating to his employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent conceded that the claimant was not furnished with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment – it was submitted that the company had updated their HR procedures and that all new hires are furnished with a written contract ( a copy of the template was submitted into evidence) and a handbook. However , a copy of the company guidelines to employees was submitted into evidence and it was advanced that the claimant had confirmed receipt of same in writing on the 4th.Feb. 1998 .It was contended that the claimant had never raised any issues concerning his employment with the company and that he never requested a written contract of employment.It was submitted that the claimant had not suffered any detriment arising from the non receipt of a contract and that the awarding of compensation would neither be just or equitable.It was advanced that the overall conduct of the respondent did not warrant compensation.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective positions of the parties . I acknowledge that the respondent has introduced revised HR policies to ensure compliance with the Act for newly recruited staff . I have considered the conflicting submissions of the parties regarding the issuing of employee guidelines to the claimant and taken account of the documentary evidence furnished by the respondent including the various records of the claimant’s training and attendances at same and I find on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was furnished with the employee guidelines. Having reviewed the document , I find that it fails to comply with subsections (c)(d)(e)(g)(ga) and (l) and accordingly I am upholding the complaint .I require the respondent to pay the claimant €750 compensation within 42 days of the date of this decision.

European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Actvities)Regulations 2012

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Regulations for “ failing to provide records when required” , for failing to keep statutory employment records and failing to provide relevant records despite having requested them. The claimant submitted that he drove an articulated lorry on the open road as part of his duties. It was submitted that the claimant was required to shunt containers on an articulated lorry from the manufacturing plant to the warehouse which was located 400-500 m away and down the road from the manufacturing plant. It was submitted that the claimant was part of the travelling staff of the company and that the company were operating a transport service “ to the ends of carrying out that company’s own business”. It was submitted that the claimant was not exempt from the EU tachograph and drivers hours rules.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that the claimant was not entitled to rely upon the regulations as the claimant did not meet the definition of a mobile worker .It was contended that the claimant was employed as a Warehouse Operator , that his rest breaks and working hours were as per those in operation in the manufacturing plant and that less than 10% of his time was spent moving “trailers carrying plastic containers to and from a warehouse a short distance down the road from the manufacturing plant. It was argued that this did not make the claimant part of a travelling staff and the company did not operate transport services. It was submitted that external contractors are engaged to transport produce and materials to customers. It was further contended that the company had sought clarity from the RSA in Sept. 2014 and had been advised that as the claimant’s main activity was not driving , he would not be required to hold a CPC card. It was submitted that if the claimant was deemed to be a mobile worker , the company in any event was fully complaint with the rest break provisions of the Regulations .Loading and attendance sheets were submitted into evidence.

Decision:

Dated: 3rd January 2018 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Complaint of Unfair Dismissal Ref CA00003067-001

Background

The claimant was employed as a Warehouse Operative with the respondent from April 1997 – 22nd.January 2016.It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that he resigned from his employment having been asked when he was leaving by his line manager in January 2016 .The claimant worked 2 weeks notice.The claimant submitted that he was reinstated by the MD of the company at a meeting on the afternoon of the 22nd.January 2016.The MD vehemently contested this submission and asserted that in order to return to work the claimant would have to discuss his return to work with his line manager before close of business on Frday the 22nd.January.The respondent asserted that the claimant failed to contact his line manager and consequently was no longer employed by the respondent from the 22nd.January 2016.It was submitted by the claimant’s representative that if it was accepted that the claimant had been reinstated by the MD at the meeting on the 22nd.January 2016 , the claimant’s dismissal the following Monday 25th.Jan.2016 constituted an unfair dismissal.The claimant’s representative further submitted that if it was found that the claimant was not reinstated at the meeting on the 22nd.Jan. 2016 , the claimant was constructively dismissed and compelled to resign due to the conduct of the respondent and the intolerable working conditions.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

It was submitted that the claimant commenced employment with the respondent in April 1997 , that he was employed as a storeman and that he was earning €524.94 per 39 hour week. It was submitted that the claimant met with the MD on the 22nd.Jan2016 and discussed the claimant’s letter of resignation and “ the fact that he did not really wish to cease his employment” .It was asserted that the claimant explained to the MD that he had acted in the heat of the moment and that the MD requested him to reconsider his letter of resignation which he duly did .It was asserted that the MD informed the claimant that he should return to work the following Monday and to “ forget about it”. It was submitted that the MD gave various undertakings to the claimant about his work environment and that the claimant “ was happy and relieved , he felt safe that he had been reinstated into his position as Storeman”. It was submitted that it would have been unusual for an MD to request a staff member to make direct contact with a junior officer should he wish to recommence his role in circumstances where the conduct of the line manager was the reason for the claimant deciding to terminate his employment. It was submitted that the claimant attended for work as usual on the 25th.Jan.2016 and met with his line manager soon after who advised the claimant “ you do not work here anymore , would you please leave the premises?” The claimant explained that he had spoken to the MD the previous Friday but the Line Manager would not accept his explanation and escorted him from the premises. When the line manager replied ( 27th.Jan.)to the claimant’s request to return to work , he advised that the claimant’s position had been filled internally and as a result reinstatement was not possible. It was submitted that the Line manager was “ acting as Judge , Jury and Executioner in his own case (Nemo Index In Sua Causa )in a workplace matter in which he had become embroiled. It was contended that the line manager should have removed himself entirely from the matter rather than seeking to deal with it. It was contended that neither the line manager nor the respondent advised the claimant of his right to appeal the line manager’s decision and that consequently the line manager was the judge in his own case and cause. It was advanced that the Commission would have to consider whether the employer acted fairly and justly vis a vis the claimant’s need to make representations on his own behalf. It was asserted that the claimant should have been afforded an appeal hearing and a right to cross examine witnesses which had been denied to him. It was submitted that the respondent failed to give any consideration as to why an employee suddenly and without warning submitted a letter of resignation after 19 year’s service. The provisions of Flanagan v UCD [1989]ILRM469 were invoked in support of the claimant’s contention that the employer should not have made the decision to dismiss. It was submitted that the claimant should have been advised of his right of appeal and the respondent should have observed the provisions of SI146/2000.It was submitted that the respondent did not have any grievance / disciplinary procedures or antibullying procedures. It was submitted that the respondent had failed to explain why the line manager dismissed the claimant on the 25.01.16 after his reinstatement by the MD on the 22nd.Jan.2016. Details of the claimant’s estimated loss were presented and were further elaborated upon a post hearing submission from his representative. It was submitted that it was impossible to reconcile the respondent’s stated assertion that the claimant had been in a key position with their failure to ask the claimant to reconsider his resignation. It was asserted that there had been no communication between the claimant and his line manager between the 8th.-25th Jan. 2016.It was advanced that if it was not accepted that the claimant was justified in handing in his resignation on the 8th.Jan. 2016 owing to the conduct of the line manager , the ejection of the claimant on the morning of the 25th.Jan.2016 , amounted to a summary dismissal. It was submitted that failure to provide an appeal for a dismissed employee can be a factor in determining the fairness or otherwise of a dismissal. It was further advanced that the behaviour of the claimant’s line manager denied the claimant his right to dignity in the workplace. It was submitted that the claimant was not provided with any details of a grievance procedure and in the absence of same the claimant was unable to pursue his grievance s about workplace stresses.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and contended that the claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment. The claimant had been employed as a Warehouse Operative with the respondent since 1997 and according to the employer gave the company 2 weeks notice of his resignation to expire on the 22nd.Jan. 2016. It was submitted that the claimant had asserted that his resignation was prompted by an approach from his line manager asking him “When are you leaving”. According to the respondent the claimant immediately prepared and signed the letter of resignation and left it on his manager’s desk. It was submitted that it was common knowledge throughout the plant that the claimant planned to leave the employment by the end of 2015.It was submitted that in those circumstances it was reasonable for the manager to make such an enquiry from the claimant in order to determine the staffing needs of the plant. It was submitted that there was no basis for the claimant’s representation of his working environment as constituting intolerable working conditions and no issue in relation to same had been raised by the claimant in the course of his employment or in his final meeting with the MD. The respondent denied that in the exchange between the claimant and his manager regarding the resignation the claimant stated “ I will go if you want me to go , I will go in 2 weeks”. It was advanced that the respondent had a clear set of disciplinary procedures which the claimant had confirmed receiving in February 1998. It was submitted that the suggestion by the claimant that he was resigning his position owing to stresses and pressure at work was not credible and had never been communicated to his manager. It was submitted that on the claimant’s final day ay work, the MD sought to meet him to wish him well and thank him for his service .It was submitted that the claimant indicated that he was unsure about leaving and the MD advised him that if he was having second thoughts he needed to speak to his manager before close of business at 4.15.It was asserted that the MD took her phone out of her pocket and offered to ring the manager but he declined indicating that he would speak to him directly. It was submitted that the MD walked back to her car gesturing to her watch and reminding the claimant of the need to speak with the manager in time if he wanted to reconsider matters. It was advanced that the claimant did not speak to or contact his manager. It was submitted that the claimant did not reconsider his resignation and did not follow the instruction to contact his manager. It was argued that it made perfect sense that the MD would direct the claimant that if he wished to withdraw his resignation , such a withdrawal should be made to his manager – which the claimant did not do. It was submitted that the MD was satisfied in her mind that the claimant had made up his mind to leave but gave him “ all the means of retracting his resignation had he wished to do so.” It was vehemently denied that the claimant was instructed by the MD to return to work on the following Monday. On the 25th.Jan. 2016 , the claimant’s manager attended work , discovered the claimant on site and informed the claimant that his employment had ended the previous Friday and he was requested to leave the premises. On the 27th.Jan 2016, the claimant wrote to his manager setting out that he had resigned in haste and asking to be re-instated. The manager responded stating that the claimant had 2 weeks to reconsider his resignation and did not do so and stating that the position had now been filled. It was submitted that there had been no termination of employment by the respondent and consequently no right of appeal arose. It was submitted that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent on Mon.25th.Jan 2016- the claimant was no longer an employee, was not insured and should not be on site. The respondent invoked UD 995/2008 in support of their contention that the employer is entitled to accept an unambiguous resignation .The respondent disputed the claimant’s account of his exchanges with the MD on his last day in employment. It was submitted that the MD made it clear that the claimant would have to contact his line manager and he declined to do so. It was contended that there was no right to an appeal after the expiry of the claimant’s notice. It was further argued that the respondent was entitled to refuse to accept revocation of his resignation and that this was supported by the EAT on numerous occasions – the provisions of UD 1170/2012 were invoked in support of this contention. The claimant’s assertion that he was dismissed when he was escorted from the workplace on the 25th.Jan . was disputed – it was contended that at this point the claimant was no longer an employee as his notice had expired. The MD categorically denied that she had reinstated the claimant on the previous Friday. In direct evidence the claimant’s line manager said it was common knowledge throughout the plant that the claimant intended leaving with a view to running a taxi business in the New Year in 2016.– he asserted that he needed clarification from the claimant of his intentions as he would have to make arrangements for the replacement of the claimant. He contended that the claimant asked for help on occasions and got the help when required. He asserted when he met the claimant on the Monday morning at issue , he asked him what was going on and told him he should not be on the site that he would have to leave and that he was not insured as he was no longer an employee. The line manager set out his account of arranging for the recruitment of the claimant’s replacement. He asserted the candidate was selected over the course of the claimant’s 2 week notice period during which the claimant did not raise any grievances or reservations about leaving the company. The manager asserted that he was not asking the claimant to relinquish his right to work when he asked when are you leaving ; he stated that he did not ask for the claimant’s resignation in writing but conveyed to him that if he was considering leaving , he needed to get it in writing. He asserted that the discussion was not heated. He stated that he would not try to persuade anyone to stay if they had decided to leave the employment. The MD stated that she learned of the claimant’s intention to leave from the line manager and that she sought to meet him on his final day at work to wish him well in the future. She stated that her recollection of the meeting with the claimant was very clear- she stated that when the claimant indicated that he was unsure about leaving she made it very clear that he would have to contact his line manager before close of business – she stated that she offered her phone to the claimant to make the call but he declined to do so. She remembered that she was under pressure to pick up her child from school. She stated that she did not reinstate the claimant and that his return to work would have to be done by the book and in accordance with company regulations. She asserted that she told the claimant if he was having second thoughts he did not have much time as he would have to inform his line manger before close of business. She sated that she volunteered to ring the line manager and tell him to expect the claimant but the claimant said no and he would decide himself. She asserted that she told the claimant he would have to make the call by 4.15 - she pointed to her watch and drove away at 3.40p.m.She stated that when she was contacted by the claimant on the following Monday , she was angry and said to him did he not understand that his resignation was now effective and he said “ I did understand that – I’m sorry”. She stated that when she spoke to the line manager the previous Friday , she indicated that the claimant may be coming looking for him before 4.15 to withdraw his resignation and if he did they could discuss it on Monday .

Decision:

Dated: 3rd January 2018 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

COMPLAINT OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL Ref CA-00003067-002

Background

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

It was submitted that the claimant commenced employment with the respondent in April 1997 , that he was employed as a storeman and that he was earning €524.94 per 39 hour week. It was submitted that on the 8th.Jan. 2016 , the claimant was approached by his line manager and asked when he was leaving in response to which the claimant “ immediately and without further consideration prepared and signed a notice of resignation and left it on his manager’s desk. It was submitted that he believed he had no option but to resign owing to the inexcusable behaviour of his line manager and his intolerable working conditions. It was submitted that in Nov. 2015 , the claimant had signalled his intention to resign to his manager but “ did not do so”. It was contended that “ the respondent was not entitled to ask the claimant to resign” and that this was not the first time the manager had behaved like this to the claimant and other employees. It was submitted that it was patently unfair to be able to ask an employee when they are leaving their employment irrespective of the circumstances. In direct evidence the claimant recounted that in signalling the matter of resignation , he was making a cry for help owing to his intolerable working conditions- he asserted that his duties had increased considerably over the years with the expansion of the plant. He asserted that he was constantly under pressure and that on the day he submitted his resignation he had a very heavy workload and was being asked by his line manager why he had not moved goods to the warehouse .The claimant contended that he asked his manager for help ; that his response was “ what do you mean, permanently “ and the manager then asked him when are you leaving? The claimant stated that he replied that he would go if he wanted him to go in 2 weeks and the manager asked him for this in writing. It was submitted that the claimant proceeded to write his letter of resignation in the heat of the moment. It was submitted that the managers behaviour towards the claimant denied the claimant his rights to dignity at work. It was submitted that the claimant was never provided with a grievance procedure and consequently was unable to pursue his grievances against his line manger. It was advanced that in assessing the matter of constructive dismissal , an and/or test applies – was there a significant breach of the contract of employment and if it is determined that a significant breach did not arise , the conduct of both parties must be examined to determine if the decision of the employee to terminate the contract was a reasonable one. It was submitted that the line manager’s question to the claimant on the 8th.Jan .2016 “When are you leaving?” was a thinly veiled guise for the claimant’s dismissal. The provisions of UD 225/2005 were invoked in support of this contention – it was submitted that when the claimant sought reinstatement the request was flatly denied by his line manager” who should have stood aside from the issue”. It was advanced that the respondent did not have a grievance procedure. It was submitted that the matter of whether the letter of resignation amounted to a forced resignation had to be examined as did whether the claimant properly considered his actions given that he acted in the heat of the moment. The provisions of UD 2116/2011 and UD932/1998-Mn 18934/1998 were invoked in support of these contentions .It was submitted that the English Court of Appeal had decided that if unequivocal words of resignation are used , the employer is immediately entitled to accept the resignation and act accordingly. But exceptions must be allowed for in the case of an immature employee or of “ a decision taken in the heat of the moment or of an employee being jostled into a decision by employers”. It was submitted that the claimant made a decision to resign his employment in the heat of the moment having been jostled into doing so by the enquiry of his line manager. It was submitted that when the claimant wrote to the respondent on the 27th.Jan 2016 it was clear that he had reconsidered his position and his job should have been retrievable. It was advanced that in Donna Millett-v-Charles Shinkwin [2004]15E.L.R.319 the Labour Court had found “where an employee makes a decision to resign which is not fully informed because he/she is not in a position to fully evaluate his/her options or he she may act on a misinterpretation of something which is said or done and the situation is still retrievable , it would be unreasonable for an employer to deny an employee an opportunity to recant within a reasonable time frame once the true position becomes clear and such denial may in circumstances amount to a dismissal”. It was contended that the claimant attempted to retrieve the situation within 6 days of the termination of his employment and that the respondent should have given him an opportunity to do so. It was submitted that in asking the question are you leaving , the claimant was being asked to relinquish his employment rights. It was submitted that the claimant was never advised that he should take appropriate advice by the respondent and the provisions of Sunday World Newspapers Ltd. –v- Stephen Kinsella and Luke Bradley [2007] IEHC 324 were relied upon in this connection. It was argued that the line manager’s enquiry amounted to constructive dismissal , that this was a serious breach of the contract of employment and the claimant felt he had n option but to resign as a result of the respondent’s failure to deal with his cry for help. At the hearing in .Nov. 2016 , the claimant’s colleague gave evidence of his exchanges with the claimant’s line manager during an incident leading to a disciplinary sanction at the end of December 2004.He asserted that he was summarily dismissed by the line manager and was reinstated 2 days later owing to the intervention of the witness’s direct line manager.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denied that the claimant had been constructively dismissed – it was submitted that he gave written notice on the 8th.Jan. 2016 , continuing to work for another 2 weeks and making no effort to raise his concerns or grievances in the intervening period. It was submitted that he had ample opportunity to reconsider his resignation but did not do so- on the last exchange with the MD it was the MD who had instigated the contact and not the claimant. It was submitted that the EAT had set a high standard of proof for constructive dismissal. It was advanced that the claimant had failed to demonstrate any significant breach of contract – going to the root of the contract or evidence showing the respondent no longer intended to be bound by an essential term of the contract .It was argued that consequently the claimant could not rely upon the contractual entitlement test. It was submitted that there was no conduct on the part of the respondent that was such that it was reasonable for the claimant to voluntarily leave his employment particularly in circumstances where he did not exhaust internal procedures. The provisions of UD1775/2010 and Travers –v-MBNA UD 720/2006 were invoked in support of this contention. It was submitted that employees are required to put their employer on notice of their concerns and afford the employer an opportunity to resolve the situation. It was submitted that the claimant’s actions in terminating his employment were not reasonable in circumstances where the respondent was unaware and had not been notified of any grievance by the claimant. In response to the evidence of the claimant’s witness , it was asserted that the witness had been suspended in 2004 pending an investigation – that the outcome of the investigation was conveyed to the witness and that while the claimant was reprimanded for refusing to carry out a legitimate instruction , he was not dismissed. In direct evidence the claimant’s line manager said it was common knowledge throughout the plant that the claimant intended leaving with a view to running a taxi business in the New Year in 2016.– he asserted that he needed clarification from the claimant of his intentions as he would have to make arrangements for the replacement of the claimant. He contended that the claimant asked for help on occasions and got the help when required. He asserted when he met the claimant on the Monday morning at issue , he asked him what was going on and told him he should not be on the site that he would have to leave and that he was not insured as he was no longer an employee. The line manager set out his account of arranging for the recruitment of the claimant’s replacement. He asserted the candidate was selected over the course of the claimant’s 2 week notice period during which the claimant did not raise any grievances or reservations about leaving the company. The manager asserted that he was not asking the claimant to relinquish his right to work when he asked when are you leaving ; he stated that he did not ask for the claimant’s resignation n writing but conveyed to him that if he was considering leaving , he needed to get it in writing. He asserted that the discussion was not heated. He stated that he would not try to persuade anyone to stay if they had decided to leave the employment. The MD stated that she learned of the claimant’s intention to leave from the line manager and that she sought to meet him on his final day at work to wish him well in the future. She stated that her recollection of the meeting with the claimant was very clear- she stated that when the claimant indicated that he was unsure about leaving she made it very clear that he would have to contact his line manager before close of business – she stated that she offered her phone to the claimant to make the call but he declined to do so. She remembered that she was under pressure to pick up her child from school. She stated that she did not reinstate the claimant and that his return to work would have to be done by the book and in accordance with company regulations. She asserted that she told the claimant if he was having second thoughts he did not have much time as he would have to inform his line manger before close of business. She sated that she volunteered to ring the line manager and tell him to expect the claimant but the claimant said no and he would decide himself. She asserted that she told the claimant he would have to make the call by 4.15 - she pointed to her watch and drove away at 3.40p.m.She stated that when she was contacted by the claimant on the following Monday , she was angry and said to him did he not understand that his resignation was now effective and he said “ I did understand that – I’m sorry”. She stated that when she spoke to the line manager the previous Friday , she indicated that the claimant may be coming looking for him before 4.15 to withdraw his resignation and if he did they could discuss it on Monday.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearings and noted the voluminous submissions and authorities relied upon. The claimant’s representative has asserted that if it is deemed that the claimant was not reinstated by the MD on Fri.22nd.Jan.2016 , the claimant was pursuing a complaint of constructive dismissal arising from the conduct of his line manager and the intolerable working conditions. I am satisfied that the claimant’s line manager gave a plausible explanation for seeking clarity in relation to the claimants future intentions with respect to working with the company.While I acknowledge the assertions that there was no grievance procedure in place, I have already concluded that the claimant was issued with employee guidelines in 1992 – this document did contain a problem solving procedure and while rudimentary it did provide for the processing of problems. Additionally I have taken account of the fact that the claimant was the subject of a number of disciplinary hearings where reference was made to the employee guidelines and accordingly I have concluded that the assertion the claimant had no means to process a grievance is not persuasive.I fully accept that the that the line manager’s enquiry to the claimant regarding his departure lacked sensitivity – however I cannot accept that this constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract .Clearly, the claimant submitted his resignation in response to this enquiry in the heat of the moment – however I cannot accept the heat of the moment authorities relied upon by the claimant in circumstances where he continued to work his notice for a further 2 weeks without raising a complaint and in circumstances where , at the initiative of the MD he was given a means to revoke his resignation but declined to do so. The claimant gave extensive evidence of what he described as intolerable working conditions – I have considered his evidence in this regard and have concluded that the claimant has not met the high bar required to support a complaint of constructive dismissal in circumstances where no written complaint was made about his line manager or intolerable working conditions while he worked at the plant or indeed during his notice period.The claimant confirmed in evidence that he had never sought medical advice or assistance in relation to the matter of workplace stress. In all of these circumstances I must conclude that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and consequently I do not uphold the complaint.

Dated: 3rd January 2018 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea