Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Assistant

A Retail Multiple

Representatives

Ms. Mairead Deevy B.L. on the instructions of Sean Ormonde & Co. Solicitors

Ibec

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013043-001

09/08/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00013043-002

09/08/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00013043-003

09/08/2017

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a General Assistant on the bakery counter from 21 March, 2008 until 3 April, 2007 when her employment was terminated. The Complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed from her employment. The Respondent denies that a dismissal occurred and contends that the Complainant resigned from her position of her own volition.

The Complainant was originally hired to work as a General Assistant on the bakery counter at one of the Respondent’s stores in a provincial town in 2008. In May, 2016, due to staffing issues, the Complainant was temporarily moved to another store in a nearby town on a short-term basis. While there, she was asked to stay permanently and agreed, although she would have preferred to return to the original store.

At this time, the Complainant informed the Store Manager that she could only work 25 hours per week due to her health problems and medication, which was accepted. Despite this, the Respondent removed other staff members from the bakery, which resulted in the Complainant often working 30-37 hours per week. The Complainant was constantly asking for help from management but this was never forthcoming. The Complainant’s role involved long shifts, sometimes without adequate breaks and she was occasionally the only member of staff on the bakery counter. The bakery working environment was hot due to ovens and there was no drinking water facility readily available behind the counter.

On 28 March, 2017, the Complainant’s grandson broke his arm in school. The Complainant was only due to work until midday that day but the Store Manager had asked if she could continue until 2 pm, to which she agreed to be helpful. The Complainant’s phone was not on her person so she missed texts and calls from her grandson. He arrived at the Respondent’s store at approx. 1:40 pm and the Complainant got a fright upon seeing him with a broken arm. It was a long walk from the school to the Respondent’s store; the Complainant had in fact been due to collect him from school at 12 pm, and had forgotten. The Complainant gave her grandson her keys and asked him to go sit in the car and wait for her, that she would be right out. She did a quick tidy up of the bakery and left the store.

The following morning, 29 March, 2017, the Complainant went to work as usual at 7 am. Just before her shift was due to finish at about midday, a colleague approached her, asking the Complainant had she not heard her name being called out over the intercom, and instructing her to go to the office to see the Personnel Manager. The Complainant went to the Personnel Manager’s Office and was asked by him if she had taken a bottle of water and brought it back to the bakery the previous day. The Complainant responded that she had and the Personnel Manager flew into a rage shouting “you didn’t pay for it” and “you broke the policy three times”. The Complainant was shocked to be spoken to in this manner and tried to explain that if she didn’t pay for the bottle of water it wasn’t intentional. The Complainant informed the Personnel Manager that she couldn’t remember is she had paid or not, and that normally if this happened, she would just pay for the water when leaving. Most days she brought her own bottle of water.

Without any further discussion, the Personnel Manager informed the Complainant that she was suspended on full pay with immediate effect. There was no reason given to the Complainant as to why such a suspension was necessary and the Personnel Manager then walked out. The following day the Complainant received a letter inviting her to an investigatory meeting on 1 April, 2017. A member of the Complainant’s trade union called and advised her to ring the Store Manager and put the meeting back a few days, as it was best that she brought a Trade Union representative with her. The Complainant did so and the meeting was rescheduled to 3 April, 2017.

On 3 April, 2017, the Complainant attended the investigation meeting along with her Trade Union representative. The meeting was conducted by the Respondent’s Deputy Store Manager and the Compliance Manager acted in the capacity of note taker. The Complainant describes the tone of this meeting generally as adversarial, with her being told by the Deputy Store Manager what happened in relation to the incident with the bottle of water rather than being asked for her version of events. The Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to state her case and she did not get to review the CCTV footage of the events in question. No evidence was called other than the allegations made by the Deputy Store Manager and the Complainant’s Trade Union representative was told that he could not speak on her behalf, but was only there to listen. The Complainant felt that she too was only there to listen. At the end of the meeting the Deputy Store Manager stated that “This is most likely a dismissal. There will be a meeting on Wednesday to make it official”. The meeting lasted just 27 minutes.

In the back of the Complainant’s mind too, was the fact that she had made complaints to management about working conditions, and her refusal to work longer hours. The Respondent had twice attempted to force her to do so, and on the second occasion, 28 March, 2017, had suggested that if she did not agree, they would have to hire staff from outside. In hindsight, this seemed to the Complainant to be a thinly veiled threat, potentially amounting to an ultimatum; she could not understand why else the hiring activities of the Respondent had anything to do with her. The Complainant subsequently, and somewhat rhetorically, asked in the disciplinary investigation meeting whether same was the real reason behind what was happening to her.

After the meeting on 3 April, 2017, the Complainant asked her Trade Union representative whether she was going to be fired and he replied that it looked that way. The Complainant then went home and sometime later received a telephone call from her Trade Union representative. The Trade Union representative informed the Complainant that he had spoken to the Deputy Store Manager who had indicated that she could resign by if she handed in her notice by 4 pm. The Complainant had not asked the Trade Union representative to talk to the Deputy Store Manager on her behalf. However, based on his advice and owing to her treatment both during the course of and in the lead up to the disciplinary meeting, having particular regard to the Deputy Store Manager’s comments that “this is most likely a dismissal”, the Complainant felt that she had no other option but to resign from her position. The Complainant reluctantly gave in a handwritten letter of resignation on 3 April, 2017 and this letter was immediately accepted by the Respondent without question.

Legal submissions on behalf of the Complainant

The Complainant’s representative made a number of legal submissions in relation to her case. The Respondent submitted that this is an unusually straightforward case. It was submitted that the Respondent, at the close of an investigatory meeting, made findings of fact about the Complainant and told her in no uncertain terms “this is most likely a dismissal”. The Respondent further stated that this would be finalised on Wednesday – just two days later. It was submitted that the Complainant cannot have misunderstood the plain meaning of these words; her Trade Union representative, who was also present at the meeting, confirmed to her afterwards that he believed she was probably going to be dismissed. In fact, he was so convinced of this, he made it his business to talk to the Respondent (purportedly on the Complainant’s behalf, but without her express or implied permission to do so – such authority which the Respondent ought reasonably to have confirmed), and seemingly tried to negotiate, as an intermediary, some class of better outcome for the Complainant.

It was submitted that in the circumstances, any reasonable person would understand their role to be in danger. When offered the olive branch of resigning and avoiding all the stigma attached to being dismissed from work it is submitted any reasonable person would have done the same. The Respondent placed the Complainant in a shotgun situation – the Complainant had a mere matter of hours following the investigation meeting in which to hand in her notice (by 4 pm that day). She had little time to consider her options. The Complainant was not somebody with a high level of formal education. She was not in a position of power or influence within the Respondent company. She was vulnerable to the decisions they might make including those they expressly communicated it was their intention to take.

Additionally, in the first informal meeting on 29 March, 2017, the Complainant was treated aggressively by the Personnel Manager, who shouted at her. The member of staff who was brought in to cover the Complainant’s shifts that day and going forward was told that the Complainant was gone from her role. At the investigation meeting on 3 April, 2017 the Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to state her case. She did not get to review the footage of the events in question. No evidence was called other than the allegations made by the investigating officer, the Deputy Store Manager. Her representative was told he could not speak on her behalf, but was only there to listen.

To the Complainant, it appeared in all of the circumstances that her fate was sealed, and anything she might have to say would not be taken on board – indeed up to that point she hadn’t been given a true opportunity to do so. The Complainant was left with no realistic choice but to acquiesce, under duress, to the Respondent’s proposal. It is submitted that any reasonable person in the Complainant’s position would have done the same, in an attempt to retain some modicum of their dignity and reputation.

It was submitted that under the “contract test” the Respondent’s actions can be described as amounting to anticipatory breach in relation to terminating her contract. They clearly signalled their intention to dismiss her, thus breaching an express contract term to continue providing work and remuneration in return for her service. They also implicitly breached the implied terms of a safe workplace, the provision of managerial support, the right to be treated with respect by your employer and not to have to endure humiliation. It was further submitted that the behaviour of the Store Manager towards the Complainant was abusive in nature and left her in a state of shock. The Complainant described it as entirely disproportionate to her alleged misconduct. The Complainant was offered an alternative to a fait accompli of dismissal, and she was within her rights to accept it. However, it is submitted that any such resignation should be found to be involuntary as it was given only subject to the extreme duress of the Respondent.

It was also submitted that the issue of grievance procedures does not arise in this case. The Complainant did not resign because of her mistreatment, which is only one factor to be considered in the round. The Complainant resigned because the Respondent told her that she was going to be dismissed and that same would be formalised two days later (i.e. on Wednesday, 5 April, 2017). No employee could be expected to have any faith in the grievance procedure of an employer who had communicated in such concrete terms their intention to dismiss. Any trust and confidence in the relationship had now been broken by the Respondent. In addition, the Personnel Manager, who would presumably have handled the grievance, was inextricably linked to the misconduct allegations and disciplinary process, and had made his biased views and prejudgement clear.

It was further submitted that the fact the Respondent did not attempt to investigate the Complainant’s hasty decision to resign should be cause for grave concern and is further evidence that the Respondent entirely meant it when they said they were going to dismiss the Complainant. It was submitted that the Respondent, in line with Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, by their conduct, both acts and omissions, created a situation where the Complainant was forced to resign.

The Complainant referred to the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer in the case of A General Operative -v- A Religious Society[1] and the EAT case of Philip Smith -v- RSA Insurance Ireland Limited[2] in support of her position in relation to this complaint.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Customer Assistant in the bakery section of one of its stores on 21 March, 2008.

The Complainant was employed on a 25-30 hour per week contract and remained in this role until her resignation with effect from 3 April, 2017. Upon the commencement of her employment the Complainant was furnished with a copy of the Respondent’s Employee Handbook which included the Staff Purchase Policy and Company Honesty Policy. On 28 March, 2008 the Complainant provided written acknowledgement that she had read and understood the contents of the Respondent’s Employee Handbook.

On 28 March, 2017 the Complainant was identified on CCTV selecting a bottle of water from a shelf in the store and concealing it in a white bag. After selecting the bottle, she was observed on CCTV leaving the premises, going to a car with a male in it and smoking a cigarette before returning to complete her shift. On 29 March, 2017 the Complainant was suspended with full pay in a meeting with the Personnel Manager. Following the suspension, a letter was sent to the Complainant inviting her to an investigation meeting on 1 April, 2017. In this letter the Complainant was advised of her right to representation from a colleague, shop steward, or other official from the recognised Trade Union within the store. The Complainant was also advised that the outcome of the investigation could result in an invitation to a disciplinary hearing and potentially could result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Along with this letter the Complainant was furnished with a copy of the Company Disciplinary Matters Policy and the Company Serious Misconduct Policy for her information.

Following a request by the Complainant’s Trade Union representative on 29 March, 2017, the date for the investigation meeting was changed to 3 April, 2017. The investigation meeting took place on 3 April, 2017 at 9:30 am in the Store Manager’s Office of the store and the investigation interview was conducted by the Deputy Store Manager. In addition to the Complainant, the meeting was also attended by her Trade Union representative and the Compliance Manager (who acted as notetaker).

During the investigation meeting the allegation was put to the Complainant that she was seen selecting the bottle of water off the shelf and concealing it in a white bag. The Complainant responded “Yeah I put it in a tray”. The Complainant also stated that she didn’t recall leaving the store with the water. Additionally, she was asked if she paid for the water on the day to which she responded “No I didn’t”. Furthermore, during the investigation it was put to the Complainant that at 1:34 pm she was observed taking the last drink of water then placing the bottle in the bin. The Complainant’s response to this was “It wasn’t intentional, I’m not denying that I didn’t pay for it”. The investigation meeting concluded at 10:00 am. Later that same day the Complainant returned to the store and gave her resignation.

Legal submissions on behalf of the Respondent

The Respondent submitted that the onus of proof in the present case rests with the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that in the case of AnEmployee-v- Employer[3], the EAT held that the requirement for the employee to show that a resignation was not voluntary and that the behaviour of the Respondent company made the future employment relationship untenable has been clearly established. The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s resignation was entirely voluntary and that no pressure was put on her by the company which would in any way lead to her considering resignation.

It was submitted that the incident involving the Complainant was investigated in line with Company procedure and her suspension with pay was due to the continued risk that this type of conduct represented to the business pending the outcome of the investigation. The Company Disciplinary Matters Policy states that for acts of serious misconduct an employee may be suspended, with pay, pending full investigation. This policy also lists breaches of the Staff Purchase and Company Honesty policies as explicit examples of serious misconduct. In line with the Company Disciplinary Matters policy suspension with pay pending investigation for this type of serious misconduct is custom and practice in the organisation. Therefore, suspension with pay in this case is not a deviation from how any case of a similar nature would be dealt within the Respondent company. Furthermore, suspension with pay is not a disciplinary sanction.

The Respondent submitted that with regards to the investigation meeting, the Company continued to operate in a fair and reasonable manner in line with their procedure and the rules of natural justice. The Complainant was given her right to representation, which she availed of, and the allegation was clearly put to her. She was given the right to respond and to provide any additional comments. The Complainant highlighted that she had never previously had disciplinary issues with the Respondent and this is something that was acknowledged by the Deputy Store Manager.

The Respondent submitted that it is clear from the points raised above that the company acted in a fair and reasonable manner throughout the course of their investigation into the incident on 28 March, 2017. The Respondent had no option but to investigate the incident and the company did not deviate from its policies and procedures during this process. Consequently, the Respondent contends that it did not act in such a way that no reasonable person could or would continue working for them. The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s resignation was entirely voluntary and that no dismissal occurred.

The Respondent submitted that the investigation meeting was necessary to understand the facts of the case and to decide if the matter warranted a disciplinary sanction. No decision had been made at the time that the Complainant submitted her resignation as the investigation officer (the Deputy Store Manager) was at the that stage still considering the information, evidence and the Complainant’s responses gathered during the investigation.

The Respondent referred to the case of McCormack -v- Dunness Stores[4] where the EAT held that: “the notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve their grievance with his/her employees”. The Respondent submitted that this case highlights the obligation on employees to utilise internal remedies before leaving their position due to alleged constructive dismissal. The Respondent contends that it is clear that even if the Complainant had any issues with her treatment by the Company during or even prior to the investigation, she failed to raise any issue informally. As such the Complainant did not exhaust all internal procedures, formal or otherwise, prior to submitting her resignation.

As the Complainant is claiming constructive dismissal, the fact of dismissal is in dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, the onus of proof rests with the Complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the Respondent were such to justify terminating her employment.

The term “constructive” dismissal is not specifically provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. However, it is a term commonly understood to refer to that part of the definition Section 1(b) of the Act which provides that:

““dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer.”

The legal test in respect of constructive dismissal was provided by the UK Court of Appeal in the case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd -v- Sharp[5]. It comprises of two tests, referred to as the ‘contract’ and the ‘reasonableness’ tests. It summarised the ‘contract test’ as follows: “If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any other performance.” The reasonableness test assesses the conduct of the employer and whether it “…conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so the employee is justified in leaving.”

According to the Supreme Court in Berber -v- Dunnes Stores[6]: “The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.”

The question which I must decide in the present case is whether, because of the conduct of the Respondent, the Complainant was entitled to terminate her contract of employment.

The circumstances which gave rise to the Complainant’s decision to resign from her employment occurred following the initiation by the Respondent of proceedings against her under the company’s disciplinary procedures. It was not in dispute that these disciplinary proceedings were invoked by the Respondent after it was alleged that the Complainant had breached the company’s Honesty Policy and Staff Purchase Policy by failing to pay for a bottle of water which she had taken from the shop floor.

The Complainant contends that she was left with no option but to resign after the Deputy Store Manager confirmed that her dismissal was imminent following the conclusion of an investigation meeting into this matter. The Complainant contends that she could not have any faith or confidence in participating any further in the company’s disciplinary procedures in circumstances where the decision to dismiss her had already been made. The Complainant claims that she was presented with a fait accompli of dismissal and was left with no option but to resign from her employment because of the conduct of the Respondent. The Respondent denies the Complainant’s contention that any pressure was applied on her to resign or that she was informed following the investigation meeting that a decision had been made to dismiss her arising from this incident. The Respondent contends that the investigation into this matter was still ongoing and that the Complainant resigned entirely of her own volition prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary procedures in relation to this incident.

It is not a matter for me, as an Adjudication Officer in this case, to establish whether or not the Complainant was guilty of the alleged incident of gross misconduct which arose in the circumstances of the present case. Having regard to the evidence adduced, it is clear that the Complainant did not dispute that she had taken the bottle of water from the shop floor on the date in question albeit she claims that she cannot recall as to whether or not she subsequently paid for the item. However, having regard to the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the Respondent to investigate the issue in relation to the alleged breaches of the company’s Honesty and Staff Purchase Policies in the circumstances where the Complainant had been observed on CCTV taking a bottle of water from the shop floor without paying for this item.

In determining whether or not the Complainant is entitled to succeed in her claim of constructive dismissal, I must therefore examine the conduct of the Respondent after its internal disciplinary procedures were invoked and determine if its conduct was such that the Complainant was left with no alternative in the circumstances but to terminate her employment.

In considering this issue, I am satisfied that the Respondent had an established Disciplinary Procedure in place which conforms to the general principles and procedures enunciated in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000[7]. I have carefully considered the manner in which the disciplinary procedures were applied by the Respondent up to the point of the Complainant’s resignation and I am satisfied that she was aware of the existence of the internal disciplinary procedures, was advised of the seriousness of the matters being investigated, she was given advance notice of investigation meeting which took place on 3 April, 2017, and was allowed representation in the form of her Trade Union official.

I also note that the Respondent’s established Disciplinary Procedures provides for the suspension of an employee on full pay in cases of alleged gross misconduct pending an investigation into such a matter. I am satisfied that the suspension of the Complainant on 29 March, 2017 was in keeping with its established disciplinary procedures in such cases where an employee is alleged to have committed an act of gross misconduct.

Based on the evidence adduced, it is clear that it was the events which occurred both during the investigation meeting and arising from the interaction between the Complainant, her Trade Union representative and the Deputy Store Manager in the hours immediately after the investigation meeting, that precipitated the Complainant’s decision to resign from her position. However, there is a dispute in relation to a number of the key facts surrounding the interaction between the parties during this period. In this regard, there are two fundamental key issues which I must try and resolve in order to determine the claim of constructive dismissal. The first issue relates to the Complainant’s claim that she was informed by the Deputy Store Manager at the end of the investigation meeting that “this is most likely a dismissal” and that she wouldreceive notification of her dismissal in a few days. The second key issue relates to the Complainant’s claim that she was informed by her Trade Union representative following the investigation meeting that the Deputy Store Manager had informed him that the company would accept her resignation rather being dismissed from her employment in relation to the incident.

Having regard to the evidence adduced, and on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the Respondent’s evidence in relation to these matters. In coming to this conclusion in relation to the first issue identified above, I heard direct evidence from both the Respondent’s Deputy Store Manager and Compliance Manager (i.e. the Note Taker) regarding the events that transpired at the investigation meeting on 3 April, 2017. The Compliance Manager’s evidence corroborated the evidence adduced by the Deputy Store Manager that he did not inform the Complainant during this meeting that “This is most likely a dismissal. There will be a meeting on Wednesday to make it official”. I have examined the transcript of the notes taken by the Compliance Manager, which were signed off by the Complainant and her Trade Union representative, and I am satisfied that these notes also corroborate the evidence given by the Deputy Store Manager on this matter.

In terms of my decision to prefer the Respondent’s evidence regarding the second issue identified above, I would point out that the Complainant’s Trade Union representative, who was a key witness in relation to the events that transpired concerning this matter did not attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to these events. The Complainant’s representative indicated that there was no particular reason why the Complainant didn’t request her Trade Union representative to attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to these matters and submitted that I should not make any adverse findings in relation to her claim as a result of the non-attendance of this witness.

However, the fact remains that one of the key factors that influenced the Complainant’s decision to resign was based on the information which she claims that her Trade Union representative conveyed to her after his conversation with the Deputy Store Manager in the aftermath of the investigation meeting. The Deputy Store Manager, whilst accepting that he had a conversation with the Trade Union representative after the investigation meeting, vehemently denies that he informed him that the company would accept the Complainant’s resignation rather than face dismissal. The Deputy Store Manager claims that this conversation was, in fact, instigated by the Trade Union representative and that it was him who sought clarification as to whether the company would accept the Complainant’s resignation. The Complainant’s evidence in relation to the conversation between her Trade Union representative and the Deputy Store Manager amounts merely to hearsay. In the circumstances, I attach very limited or little weight to this evidence in the absence of corroboration from the Trade Union representative. I have found the Deputy Store Manager to be a credible witness and I prefer his version of events in relation to his interaction with the Trade Union representative on this matter.

The EAT in the case of An Employee v An Employer[8] held that: “In advancing a claim for constructive dismissal an employee is required to show that he or she had no option in the circumstances of her employment other than to terminate his or her employment. In effect the relevant section reverses the burden of proof for an employer set out in section 6(1) of the Act. The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.”

Having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the Respondent conducted the investigation into this matter in accordance with its own internal disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Deputy Store Manager did not have the authority to make a decision to dismiss the Complainant in relation to the alleged incident of gross misconduct. In the circumstances, I find that the investigation into this incident was still ongoing and that the Respondent had not taken or communicated any decision to dismiss the Complainant at the material time of her resignation. I find that the Complainant resigned of her own volition prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in relation to this matter.

I must also address the Complainant’s claim that the complaints which she had made to management about her working conditions during the period prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and her subsequent resignation may also have been a factor which contributed to the Respondent’s attempts to dismiss her or force her resignation from the company. Having regard to the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s evidence on this point amounts to mere supposition unsupported by any compelling evidence to support this contention. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there has not been any cogent evidence adduced from which I could reasonably conclude that the disciplinary procedures which were invoked by the Respondent involving the Complainant were in any way related to the fact of her having made complaints to management about her working conditions. As I have already found above, I am satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the Respondent to investigate the alleged breaches by the Complainant of the company’s Honesty and Staff Purchase Policies in the circumstances that pertained.

Having regard to the two tests identified above, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent’s conduct was unreasonable or was such that she had no option but to resign her position or that it was such as to show that it no longer intended to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract. In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant resigned from her position of her own volition and was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Accordingly, I find that her complaint cannot succeed.

I find that the Complainant resigned from her position of her own volition and was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Accordingly, I find that her complaint cannot succeed.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – Section 1 - Constructive Dismissal – Disciplinary Procedures – Gross Misconduct - Voluntary Resignation – Complaint fails