Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Director

A Printing Company

Representatives

 Solicitors

Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00016820-001

15/01/2018

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

CA-00016820-002

15/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00016820-003

15/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00016820-004

15/01/2018

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Sales Director on the 1st May 1998 and he resigned on the 13th October 2017. He was paid €96,000 per year. He is claiming that he was constructively dismissed and that he was not given terms and conditions of employment. He is claiming under the Industrial Relations Act that the was bullied and harassed.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 1st May 1998. Approximately 5 years after he started he was offered, a 5% shareholding in the company by the MD which he accepted and became a shareholder. He became a director of the company in 2003 and he jointly managed the Sales and Customer Service team with the MD. He was also in charge of quotations and liaising with production.

In November 2016, the complainant said he requested a day’s leave for his brother wedding which was on the 16th of December in the UK. He said that he was told by the Managing Director that was the date of the Christmas party and as a Director of the company he was expected to attend

He explained that his brother was terminally ill, which the MD was already aware of and that it was not possible to attend the Christmas party. The MD then asked him if he could get a return flight on the evening of the wedding to attend the Christmas party. He had to explain to the MD that the wedding was more important to him than the Christmas party.     He attended the wedding.

Following the wedding, his brother and his wife came home to Ireland for Christmas/New

Year and he had arranged to meet him for lunch on Friday the 23rd December 2016, which was the day the company finished up for Christmas holidays (they would normally finish up 2-2.30pm).

After all the other staff had gone home and just as the complainant was about to leave he was approached by the MD who demanded that he wanted him to sign off the company accounts that day. The accounts had been sitting on the MD’s desk for approximately 2 months. He explained

he had arranged to meet his brother for lunch, but the MD insisted the accounts be signed off as he needed to drop them to the accountant's straight away after he finished work. The complainant said that he had no option but to cancel his lunch appointment to sign off the accounts. However, the accounts were still on the MD’S desk when the complainant returned to work on the 23rd January 2017.

The complainant was due back at work after Christmas on the 3rd January 2018, but his brother was in hospital seriously ill and he telephoned the MD on the 2nd of January to tell him about his brother’s terminal condition that he was taking a few days off to spend time with him. His brother passed away on the 8th of January and he texted the MD to let him know.   The complainant said that he had expected to be back at work on Monday the 16th January but he was struggling to get back to normality as he had lost his brother had best friend.

He texted MD to say he was going to take Monday off and he hoped to be back at work on Tuesday 17th January 2017. He said he was still struggling with grief and was unable to return to work. His wife telephoned the MD to say he would not be in that day and she had to telephone again the following day to say he was unable to go to work.   He said his wife found MD’s tone abrupt and uncaring. The complainant said that he was still unwell on Thursday and his wife telephoned but the MD was not there and she spoke to a woman in the office and asked her to tell the MD that he would not be at work that day. She told the complainant’s wife that the staff were very concerned about the complainant, but that MD had actually said he expected the complainant back to work the day following his brother’s funeral.   His wife asked that the complainant not be contacted directly. The complainant then got a text message from MD saying “Can you ring me straight away? I need to know if I need to cancel my trip to Liverpool tomorrow morning”.

The complainant said that he completely forgotten that MD was due to go to Liverpool to see a football match. He said that he was upset and his wife telephoned the MD. He told her that he needed to know if the complainant would be back at work so he could go away. His wife told him that the MD did not express any compassion about the fact the complainant had recently lost his brother.

He returned to work the following Monday, 23rd January and he went straight to MD to apologised and explained that he needed extra time to recover from the loss of his brother. MD’s

response was “So you’re better now, there are lots of quotes in there to be done”.   The complainant said that walked out of the office feeling that the MD did not care. He said that every person in the in the company asked after his welfare and wished him well apart from MD.

In April, the complainants Mother in Law passed away suddenly. The MD was away on holidays and the complainant texted him to let him know. He said that MD expressed sorrow over the death, but was anxious to know that the office was covered during his absence. In July the complainant’s father in law became ill and had to move in with his family as he could no longer live alone and his wife had to give up her job and became his main carer.

In early September, his wife’s brothers approached them to say that they had taken specific time off from work to mind their father and suggested that the complainant and his wife should take a holiday during this period. On Monday, 4th of September the complainant said that he approached MD and requested 8 days unpaid leave. He said that he has taken unpaid leave every year as far back as he could remember. He told MD that another member of staff was off two of those days during this period, but that it was the only opportunity for himself and his wife to take holidays.   He said that he was shocked and stunned by MD’s response and his insults and abuse. He said that he roared and shouted at him saying “You have had enough holidays this year, you’re not getting any more time off. Two people in the Sales office can’t be off together”. The complainant said this rule has not applied if both of them were out at the same time leaving two junior members in charge. The complainant said that he tried to explain the reason he wanted to take holidays at this particular time, but MD shouted at him “I don’t care about your personal life” and went on to accuse him of having 3 weeks holidays in January and ruining his January. The complainant said that although he was dumbstruck he apologised that his brother didn’t die at a more convenient time.   MD then told him he could take one or two days saying that he didn’t want to talk about it anymore.

On Monday 18th of September, the complainant approached MD again and requested the annual leave again. MD said to him that “You’re not getting any more holidays, I told you that you could have one or two days.” The complainant tried to explain to him that 2 days was not long enough

But MD replied saying “You’re not getting any leave and by the way I can get someone else to do your job, just as well as you, for a fraction of what you cost my f***** company!”.

The complainant said that this was the final straw for him and walked out of his office. He said that

relations were very frosty and the subject wasn’t raised again until Friday 13th October. In the meantime, the complainant said he thought things over and had discussed the situation with close family and friends and he concluded that he had no option but to resign. He said that he felt bullied, disrespected and highly offended by the treatment, despite almost 20 years of service, in helping to build the company from the beginning to what it is today. He felt that the relationship with MD was broken and irreparable damaged.

On Friday 13th October, he approached the MD and said to him that he had insulted and abused by him on the two recent occasions and he had been left with no option but to resign as an employee with immediate effect as he could no longer continue to work with him.

The complainant’s barrister submitted that the complainant was constructively dismissed. Having regard to the long-standing relationship between the complainant and the respondent and the personal difficulties experienced by the complainant, the respondent’s conduct and the threatening and abusive behaviour and the working environment caused severe difficulties for the complainant and his mental health. It was submitted that the respondent was on notice of the fragile status of the complainant, yet he failed to ensure the complainant was afforded dignity and respect in the workplace.

She submitted that the complainant made every effort to raise his difficulties with the respondent, but the respondent failed to acknowledge or address the matter. There was no grievance procedure or policies in the company in respect of dignity at work, therefore, the complainant had no opportunity to raise issues in respect of his employment in a safe environment. This resulted in a significant impact on his ability to continue in the employment, having regard to the threatening and abusive behaviour of the respondent. Given the lack of any policies and or procedures in place, the respondent did not afford the complainant any reasonable opportunity to raise issues in respect of his employment in a safe environment.   This resulted in a significant impact on his ability to continue in his employment.

It was submitted that in Quigley v Complex Tooling and Moulding applied, the Court held that bullying must be “repeated inappropriate and undermining of the dignity of the employee at work”

The respondent’s conduct was entirely unreasonable, threatening and abusive towards the complainant in circumstances where the complainant’s request for annual leave was entirely reasonable.

I was referred Meehan’s book on Employment Law which stated “… it would be vital for the employee to avail of the grievance procedure and only after the exhaustion of such procedure, without a satisfactory outcome, can an employee resign and claim constructive dismissal.”

It was submitted, that given the absence of any procedures, the complainant made several unsuccessful attempts to address the matter informally with the respondent. In Byrne v Horwath Bastow Charleston Wealth Management Ltd (UD 67/2014) the EAT noted that the complainant had not exhausted all internal avenues before resigning and the respondent had made reasonable and genuine attempts to resolve the situation. It was submitted that the above case should be distinguished from the case herein, where the complainant attempted to resolve the matter, but the respondent continued to escalate the abusive behaviour and given the absence of any internal avenues or procedures, the complainant’s attempts were unsuccessful.

In the case of Conduit Enterprises Limited v A worker LRC 20855, the Labour Court acknowledged that the employee had encountered difficulties in the workplace and sought assistance, however, when these difficulties escalated he reacted by resigning without giving the employer an opportunity to respond. It was submitted that this can be distinguished from the current claim, where the complainant was left without an alternative to resigning having regard to the conduct of the respondent.

In Schonfeld v West Wood Club Clontarf Limited UD1013/2013 the EAT held that the actions and behaviour of the respondent contributed to the decision of the claimant to resign. The style of communication towards to her and at times she was shouted at. The EAT found that the resignation was involuntary and constituted constructive dismissal as defined under the legislation. Furthermore, it was also confirmed that the respondent did not have a dedicated human resource person or section. It was submitted this is particularly relevant to the facts of this case where the dedicated person with HR responsibilities was MD and there was no other person above him. Therefore, the complainant had nobody to complain to.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 1998 as a sales representative. After the MD he was the first employee of the company. He had a successful career in the organisation and he eventually became Sales Director. He was given minority shareholding in the company and became a company director in 2003.

The MD said that the complainant was no 2 in the company and they worked closely together. They had a very good working relationship and attended various social occasions over the years. He said that very few issues arose between them, but if there were any they always resolved them through discussion.

MD said that he knew the complainant’s brother was terminally ill.   In November the complainant asked for time off to attend his wedding in London. When he realised that the date coincided with the staff Christmas party he expressed disappointment for him that he was going to miss it. He said that he never refused him permission to attend the wedding and he was very happy for him to go to it. He states that the complainant misconstrued the conversation he had with him.

In relation to asking the complainant to sign the accounts on the day of the Christmas holidays, the MD said that the complainant already had a draft copy of the accounts and it was not a job that would have delayed him very long.

MD said that he had great sympathy for the complainant when his brother became seriously ill and died in early January 2017. He went to the funeral as did all the staff. The complainant did not contact him in the 2 weeks after the funeral but the complainant’s wife telephoned. He texted the complainant because he was going to England for a match and he wanted to know if he would be back to work on that day. The complainant’s wife telephoned to say not to contact the complainant again. MD said that he did not know at that time that the complainant was so stressed and if he had he would have done things differently.

When he complainant returned they had coffee together and he expressed his condolences to him. The complainant apologised about not being in contact with him. MD said that after that everything returned to normal and there were no difficulties between them. On 4th September the complainant asked for time off.   He asked him if anyone else was off during this period and the complainant told him that another employee was off for 4 working days. He suggested to the complainant to ask this person if they could change their holidays. MD denied that he shouted at the complainant or that he was abusive towards him. He said that he did say to the complainant that he found the going tough when he was out in January.

MD said that between the 4th and 18th of September things were normal between them. On the 18th the complainant came into his office and he was agitated and very angry. He asked for holidays again and MD told him he had no problem with him taking time off, but he could not have holidays while another staff member was on holidays. It would mean that there was only one junior staff left in the office and another staff member was on long term sick leave. MD believed he was being reasonable and he denied that he threatened him. The complainant walked out of the office and he called him back saying that there was no point in falling out about holidays.

On the 13th October the complainant came into his office in an agitated state and asked if his holidays had been sorted out. He replied saying that he had not heard back from him in weeks about the holidays. The complainant replied saying that he was leaving and stormed out of the office leaving his computer on. He went after him but the complainant left the building.

MD said that he believed that the complainant would cool down over the weekend and return to work on Monday. He returned the company property to another employee over the weekend. After 10 days, when the complainant had not returned to work, MD wrote to him on the 23rd October 2017 seeking a meeting with him to resolve the issues.   He sent him a similar letter on the 16th November and he received a response from the complainant’s solicitor saying that the complainant had resigned on the 13th October and he was treating it as constructive dismissal.

The respondent’s solicitor submitted that the burden of proof in a constructive dismissal claim is on the complainant. The burden of proof is a “high bar” and the complainant must make a convincing case in that regard. The complainants claim lacks sufficient detail to ground a constructive dismissal claim and his evidence does not reach the high bar required in such claims. Following the meeting about the annual leave on the 18th of September, the complainant waited twenty five days before resigning on the 13th October 2017. It was submitted that the complainant had his mind made up to resign before the meeting on the 13th October and that he failed to exhaust other options before resigning and failed to engage with the respondent after resigning.

I was referred to the EAT decision in Katriona Burns V ACM Community Development Society Ltd UD2166/2011 refers to the “high bar set to prove constructive dismissal.” In McCormack v Dunnes Stores UD142/2008 the EAT stated 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 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 the employment with the particular intolerable”

It was submitted that there is a need for the complainant to exhaust alternative options before taking the final step of resignation. In respect of constructive dismissal cases, Dr. Mary Redmond’s well-known employment law text Dismissal Law in Ireland, Dr Redmond stated:

‘There is “something of a mirror image between constructive dismissal and ordinary dismissal… Just as   an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so too an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance. The duty is an imperative in employee resignations.”

The matter I must consider is whether the complainant was constructively dismissed as he resigned from the employment. Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 defines dismissal as:

“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,

In relation to a breach of the contract of employment the judgment in Berber v Dunnes Stores Limited [2009] IESC 10 is the authority. The Supreme Court held that the test for whether the conduct had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in a contract of employment is an objective one. Finnegan J. held:

“1. The test is objective. 2. The test requires that the conduct of both employer and employee be considered. 3. The conduct of the parties as a whole and the accumulative effect must be looked at.”

and

The Labour Court in the case of Paris Bakery & Pastry Limited -v- Mrzljak DWT1468, endorsed the legal test in respect of constructive dismissal as set out by the UK Court of Appeal in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd -v- Sharp [1978] 1 All E.R. 713. It comprises of two limbs, referred to as the ‘contract’ and the ‘reasonableness’ tests. The ‘contract test’ is set out 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.”

The Labour Court went on to say: “Where an employer commits a repudiatory breach of contract the employee is entitled to accept the repudiation and consider him or herself dismissed. However, not every breach of contract will give rise to repudiation. It must be a breach of an essential term which goes to the root of the contract.

….. the definition deals with a situation in which the employer conducts his or her affairs in relation to the employee, so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. Thus, an employer's conduct may not amount to a breach of contract but could, nonetheless, be regarded as so unreasonable as to justify the employee in leaving there and then.

According to the Supreme Court in Berber cited above, “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 to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.”

It places the burden of proof on the employee to show that his resignation was justified in all the circumstances. The complainant put forward 3 incidents which occurred in late 2016 and early 2017 and one incident which occurred in September 2017 to support his claim of unacceptable behaviour by the respondent.

The first related to seeking a day off for his brother’s wedding, which coincided with the office Christmas party, and he believed that the respondent put pressure on him to either not to go to the wedding, or to return early from London to attend the party. His brother was terminally ill and the respondent was well aware of the situation. The respondent denied that he tried to stop the complainant from going or that he asked him to return early from the wedding to attend the Christmas party. He said that he felt disappointed for the complainant that the two events coincided, but he was happy for the complainant to take the day off to attend the wedding.

The second issue related to being asked to sign the company accounts on the day of the Christmas holidays and just before he was to meet his brother for lunch. The complainant said that it would have taken 45 minutes to read the accounts and the respondent said that he believed that he had already read them as he had a draft copy and it would have taken 5 minutes to sign them. The respondent said that it was not unreasonable to ask the complainant, a company director, to sign the accounts so that he could give them to the accountant.

The third issue related to taking two weeks’ off after his brother’s funeral to recover from the effect the death had on him. He said that the respondent was not sympathetic and was seeking his return to work so he could attend a match in England. The respondent said that he had great sympathy for the complainant. He said that he did not know that the complainant was ill and if he had he would not have enquired when he was returning to work.

Having reviewed the evidence in relation to these three complaints, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established that the respondent’s conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. I note that when the complainant returned after the two weeks that they had coffee together and on the complainant’s own evidence that a normal working relationship resumed between them. The complainant said that he had no other complaints about the respondent from then until the 4th September 2017 when the respondent refused him leave.

The respondent said that he refused the leave because another employee was taking holidays at the same time and it is a rule in the company that 2 people from the same team cannot be on holidays at the same time. The respondent said that he believed at the end of that meeting the complainant was going to check with the other employee to see if he could change the dates of his holidays but the complainant never reported back. A further meeting about the holidays took place on the 18th September and the respondent refused the holidays again. Both parties accept that this was a heated conversation but there was a difference of opinion about what was said.

While there was no written policies or staff handbook in place setting out the rules including the rules in relation to the taking of annual leave, I note that the complainant said that it was custom and practice that 2 people could not be on holidays at the same time apart from a day here or there. The complainant said that his proposed holidays only overlapped by two days but the respondent said it was four days. I note that the complainant knew before he approached the respondent that another person was due to take a number of days leave during his purposed leave. Likewise, I note that the respondent asked him to check with this staff member to see if he was willing to change his leave but he did not do so. The complainant was the second most senior member of staff and a partner in the company and was in a position in my opinion to try and resolve the annual leave overlap as suggested to him by the respondent. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion, that it was not unreasonable of the respondent to refuse the leave at the second meeting on the 18th September 2018.

The complainant said that he resigned on the 13th October because of the conduct of the respondent at the meetings of the 4th and 18th of September.  

I accept that the meetings of the 4th and 18th of September were difficult and argumentative meetings and probably things were said which should not have been said. However, when the complainant left the respondents office after the meeting on the 18th even though he was very upset about the alleged threats and allegations made to him by the respondent he did not resign immediately. I note that he continued in work without any further difficulties with the respondent for nearly 4 weeks until the 13 October and then resigned.

In applying the jurisprudence of the Labour Court in the case of Paris Bakery cited above the Labour Court in considering conduct said: “ be regarded as so unreasonable as to justify the employee in leaving there and then.

Therefore, the test I must apply is:   was the conduct of the employer so unreasonable that the employee would be justified in resigning “there and then”?

In the case herein, the complainant took time out to consider the respondent’s conduct before deciding to leave. It is clear therefore that the complainant did not consider the respondent’s conduct at the meeting of the 18th September so unreasonable at that time, otherwise he would have left immediately and not continued working with the respondent company for nearly 4 weeks afterwards.

I cannot accept that the respondent was guilty of conduct which “is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment” applying the test in Paris Bakery cited above. His conduct in relation to the annual leave certainly did not meet the standards implicit in a “last straw” incident as set out in Berber above. The evidence tendered by the complainant is not sufficient to support a complaint of constructive dismissal. In Berber cited above the Supreme Court test for constructive dismissal said that “the conduct of the employer must be unreasonable.” I find that no evidence has been presented by the complainant to support the contention that the respondent’s conduct met this test.

I note the complainant said in evidence that he had made up his mind to resign on the 13th October after discussing it with family and friends and nothing that the respondent said on that day would have changed his mind. He accepted in evidence that the respondent asked him not to resign.

I believe, even though there was no grievance procedure in the company, that the complainant had an obligation, in the weeks before his resignation, to explore ways of resolving the issue he had with the respondent given that he was the second most senior employee and a partner in the company. I note that the complainant accepts that the respondent asked him not to resign and wrote to him on the 23rd October and the 16th November 2017 asking him to a meeting to discuss the matter. He did not agree to meeting him and his solicitor wrote to the respondent confirming his resignation. I note that the complainant said in evidence that in the 18 years that he worked there, any differences of opinion that arose between him and the respondent were resolved by an informal meeting between them. In McCormack v Dunnes Stores cited above I note that the EAT held that the employee had to demonstrate that he “had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers.”

This implies that there is an obligation to use informal procedures.     The complainant did not seek to meet the respondent before resigning or agree to meet the respondent’s invitation to a meeting before confirming his resignation and thereby failed to exhaust the informal procedures that had been used in the past to resolve issues between them.

For all the above reasons, I find that the complainant has failed to meet the threshold to establish a complaint of constructive dismissal in accordance with Section 1(b) of the UD Act and as set out in the caselaw cited above. Therefore, the complaint fails.

The complainant has failed to establish that he was constructively dismissed.

The complainant said that he was employed since 1998 and did not receive a statement in writing of his contract or terms and conditions of employment.

The respondent accepted that there was no contract of employment provided to the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant was well aware of his terms and conditions of employment and no issues ever arose in that regard. The respondent submitted that no award should be made to the complainant for the failure to provide him with terms and conditions in writing. It was submitted there was no loss or prejudice suffered by the complainant, the matter had no practical significance for him any breach is trivial or technical. I was referred an EAT decision in Archibold v CMC (Ireland) Limited TE 05/203 where the EAT stated that it must be considered whether the complainant was “unduly prejudiced” by any failure to provide him written terms In Udalous v South South East Vegetable Producers TE 224/2012 the Eat held that there was compliance with the Spirit of the Act and that it would be unjust to award any compensation.

The Terms of Employment(Information) Act 1994 provides the following

3.—(1) “An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say—

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee,

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),

(c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,

(d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,

(e) the date of commencement of the employee’s contract of employment,

(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,

(fa) a reference to any registered employment agreement or employment regulation order which applies to the employee and confirmation of where the employee may obtain a copy of such agreement or order,

(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000,

(ga) that the employee may, under section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, request from the employer a written statement of the employee’s average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period as provided in that section,

(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),

(j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),

(k) any terms or conditions relating to—

(i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and

(ii) pensions and pension schemes,

(l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee’s contract of employment) to determine the employee’s contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,

(m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made.”

While I accept that the complainant was not unduly prejudiced by the failure provide him with such statement, there is a statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act. I find that the complainant is well founded.

I order the respondent to pay the complainant €500 nett in compensation for the breach of the Act.

I find that the complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €500 nett compensation for the breach of the Act.

The complainant is seeking an investigation into bullying by the respondent under the Industrial Relations Act. He said that he was bullied by the respondent and as a direct result of the behaviour and actions he suffered stress. It was submitted that the complainant made numerous attempts to discuss and raise the matters and issues of his mental health and wellbeing with the respondent but there was a barrage of abuse resulting in the termination of his employment. The respondent’s conduct was entirely unreasonable, threatening and abusive towards the complainant when he requested his annual leave.

The resignation of the complainant was reasonable having to the circumstances and his conditions of employment. The respondent’s conduct was inappropriate and continuously eroded and undermined the dignity of the complainant. The absence of procedures and the refusal of the respondent to discuss the matters at issues contributed and conflated the instances causing the distress and resulted in the deterioration of the complainant’s psychological wellbeing. This was brought to the attention of the respondent and he refused to act on it.

The respondent said that there was no trade dispute raised by the complainant. There were no complaints raised by the complainant in relation bullying. It was submitted that this complaint overlaps with the constructive dismissal claim and the issue of bullying was not raised until after the complainant resigned.

I note that the complainant accepted that he did not raise any issue about bullying until after his resignation.   The issue of bullying was raised in his solicitor’s letter of the 16th November 2017 and after the complainant had left the employment. I note that there were no grievance procedures in the company but there were informal procedures whereby the complainant and the MD met to resolve any issues between them. However, the complainant was in a senior role in the company and there was an obligation on him to raise his grievances with the MD and give him an opportunity to resolve the issues. I note the complainant refuse to meet the MD before his solicitor confirmed his resignation.

I find that the complainant did not raise his bullying complaint and give the respondent an opportunity to respond before resigning.

I find that the complainant did not raise his bullying complaint and give the respondent an opportunity to respond before resigning.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, Constructive Dismissal, Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Statement of Terms of Employment, Industrial Relations, bullying