Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Food Service Provider

Representatives

The claimant represented herself at the hearing.

Terry McNamara IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00007792-001

25/10/2016

The claimant was employed as a Catering Assistant with the respondent and submitted that she was unfairly dismissed .The claimant submitted that she had been bullied at work and that she had been on certified sick leave for 3 years.She set out a chronology of the meetings she attended following the investigation of her complaints.The claimant stated that she was unable to return to work following the outcome of the investigation and had sought to be relocated to another site.The claimant stated that she verbally resigned at the meeting on the 29th.July as she was unable to return to the workplace physically or mentally.She stated that she asked her manager at the meeting what she wanted her to do because she was not willing to locate her elsewhere. The claimant stated she sought advice and was advised to bring a case to the EAT within 6 months.The claimant acknowledged that she did not utilise the company grievance procedure.

The respondent disputed that the claimant was dismissed and submitted that the claimant resigned and on receipt of her resignation the company requested the claimant to reconsider her decision but did not respond.Accordingly, it was submitted that   the company accepted her decision to resign.

The claimant had been employed as a Catering Assistant with the respondent since September 2007.In November 2014 , the claimant pursued a Dignity At Work complaint against a number of colleagues – the complaint was investigated under the respondent’s Dignity At Work policy but was not upheld – the findings were issued on the 25th.March 2015 .The claimant appealed the findings of the investigation but the appeal was not upheld.

The claimant commenced a period of sick leave on the 18th.August 2015 – she was referred for a medical assessment in October 2015 – it was found that the claimant was fit to return to work and it was recommended that she return on a phased basis. The respondent set out a chronology of the ensuing communications with the claimant – seeking the claimant’s return to work. The claimant sought redeployment to another site in April 2016.The claimant attended an informal welfare meeting on the 29th.July 2016 – it was submitted that the claimant resigned at the meeting – reading aloud her resignation from a piece of paper .She indicated that she was advised to proceed in this manner by her solicitor. At this time, the claimant was submitting medical certs indicating a stress related illness – the respondent wrote to the claimant on the 22nd.August 2016 asking her to reconsider her resignation but received no response and accordingly accepted her resignation.

It was submitted that the claimant voluntarily terminated her own employment and that once notice is given it cannot be unilaterally   withdrawn.It was asserted that the respondent only became aware that the claimant had an issue with her resignation , when her solicitor wrote to the respondent 2months after the resignation alleging that the claimant had not resigned .

On receipt of her P45 the claimant did contact the respondent about her holiday pay and it was submitted that this was an opportunity for the claimant to clarify any issues about her resignation but she did not do so. It was submitted that the claimant had a number of opportunities to withdraw her resignation but did not do so. A number of EAT determinations were invoked in support of the respondent’s arguments. It was advanced that the claimant had a more than adequate cooling off period following her resignation on the 29th.July 2016 to reconsider her decision – additionally the respondent wrote to the claimant on the 22nd.August 2016 asking her to reconsider her resignation but she failed to respond.IT was submitted that the respondent accepted the claimant’s resignation at face value and that there was no dismissal.It was submitted that the respondent acted reasonably in all of its dealings with the claimant and there was no justification for deeming her resignation to be a dismissal under the Act.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective submissions of the parties.I consider it significant that the claimant failed to utilise the company grievance procedure when her request to be relocated was denied.I further find that the respondent acted reasonably in inviting the claimant to reconsider her resignation .In all of the circumstances I most conclude that there was no dismissal and that the claimant voluntarily terminated her own employment.Accordingly I do not uphold this complaint.