Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A NOC Technician

A Payment Systems Company

Representatives

Dan Walshe B.L. instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co. Solicitors

McInnes Dunne Solicitors

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-00010642-001

05/04/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00010642-002

05/04/2017

The complainant claims that he was confronted by his managers over his accidental uploading of personal files on to the respondent’s IT system and he said he was left with no option other than to resign or be dismissed from his position with the respondent.

The respondent disputes the claim made against it and said that the complainant resigned his position voluntarily.

The following is a brief summary of the complainant’s case.

In January 2015, the complainant applied for a role as a Network Operations Centre (NOC) Technician with the respondent. He had 20 years IT experience as a Technician at the time. He said that he was offered the NOC Director post although he had only applied for a technician’s post and had no managerial experience. He said it was technical post but he was responsible for the management of the other NOC Technicians. He was paid a salary of €43,000 per year. He said that he found the management role difficult and challenging. He said that as a NOC Director he was provided with a work phone and it was agreed with his Manager, Ms. A, that he would use it as his work and personal phone as he would need to be contactable outside of his core hours and the respondent would pay the bill. He claims that he advised the respondent that his duties were increasing and becoming more non-technical and he was finding it difficult but he was reassured at first, by Ms. A, that all was going fine and “to keep chipping away”.

He claims that things started to change with Ms. A in and around end of May 2016 when Ms. A tried to insist that he would be contactable while on his annual holidays. He claims that Ms. A questioned his dedication to his work and reorganised project dates that clashed with his holiday plans. This had serious implications on the work he was managing and “caused mayhem” while he was away on holidays. He said he was held directly responsible for these problems although they were solely because of Ms. A’s decisions to meddle with his arrangements. He said that on his return to work on 7 June 2016, Ms. A called him into her office and reprimanded him and told him he would have to work unpaid overtime, plus Saturdays to rectify the problems. He claims he did this from June until September 2016. He said that he was also moved from his private office to the open plan office outside of Ms. A’s door and feels that was a further attempt to humiliate and embarrass him.

The complainant said that on 10 June 2016 he applied to Ms. A for four days off in early/mid-July to visit his father who was to have surgery. He said that he received a text message expressing concern that he needed to have some duties completed before she could consider his request. He said the duties were completed and he got a verbal agreement that he could take the time off so he purchased the airline tickets to the UK. He said by early July Ms. A again raised concerns about him taking leave. He said that he offered a number of compromises which were initially accepted but ultimately refused. He said that he was upset and getting stressed and was out of pocket for this untaken trip.

He said that on 16 July 2016 he received a text from Ms. A to say that she was not happy with how things were going and she needed to talk with him. He claims a meeting was arranged and Ms. A said that she wanted “to call a truce” and admitted that she had applied pressure on him, and was too hard on him, with a hope that he would react positively. However, she saw the pressure he was under and she sought to help him with some of the more HR management tasks. However, on 29 August 2016 he received a written warning by Ms A following a disciplinary process in relation to an email he sent to his NOC team about their legal entitlements to take break times. On 19 September 2016 Ms. A furnished the complainant with notice of a disciplinary hearing in relation to his failure to train his team properly on a new ‘alert’ and how to document it correctly. He said he received a first written warning for this. He said that things were escalating.

He said that on 25 September 2016 he received a text from Ms. A, for him to consider taking a demotion from NOC director to NOC technician on a salary of €40,000 and an 8-hour shift. He said that the only other alternative is that he would be without a job. He said after endless stress and intimidation and in order to safeguard an income he felt he was left with no choice but to accept Ms. A’s proposal. The complainant said that Ms. A told him she would tell US headquarters that his circumstances had changed and he needed to revert. He said there was no negotiations on the terms and conditions, Ms. A set them all and told him to take them or leave. The complainant listed a number of instances where he felt humiliated after this point and suggested that Ms. A was at the centre of all of these situations.

He said that Mr. B took over from him as NOC Director and he reported directly to him from then on. The complainant said that he had a meeting with Ms. A and Mr. B on 17 January 2017 and they were complementary of how things were going and he said that he finally felt that things were looking up for him and that he was under less stress. Two days later the complainant said that he was asked to come into an adjoining vacant office to “look at desks”. When he went in to the office he was presented with 4 photographs. He claims one was of a topless picture of his partner, a second was a picture of him lying in a bath smoking, a third picture of his nephew drinking a soft drink from a wine glass and a fourth of “a plastic bag containing what appears to be cannabis”. He said that Ms. A said that she had someone checking their IT systems, ahead of a new security check, a number of photos were found in the complainant’s personal user folder. The complainant said that when he was demoted from NOC Director to NOC Technician he handed over his work phone to Mr. B, the new NOC Director, and had transferred and saved all his private data, including pictures and media, from the work phone on to a new personal phone and that is how all the data ended up being stored unintentionally on the IT work system.

The complainant said that Ms. A told him he had two choices either tender his resignation immediately and she would delete the files on the IT system, shred the pictures and provide him with a good reference or, she would call the Gardaí and he would be escorted from the premises, where he would lose his job and not receive a positive reference. The complainant said that he asked for time to consider his position and he was told that he had to decide there and then. He said that under the duress and in shock he agreed to tender his resignation and he was escorted to his work station and told what to write in his resignation email to HR. He said following this he was handed the contents of his locker in a plastic bag, which Ms. A had cleared out for him and he was escorted from the building to the carpark.

The complainant said that he met with Ms. A on 24 January 2017 to return his key fob and collect his P45, his reference and memory stick. He said Ms. A produced a ‘post-it’ at the meeting which has a warning written on it that if there were any issues or he caused any trouble she would contact the Gardaí, his ex-wife and his landlord. He felt threatened and intimidated as he had links to the area and Ms. A and her husband have a lot of influence in the IT sector around there and he was worried about his future career.

He claims that he got work in a company he worked with in the past in June 2017 and has a salary of €27,000.

The complainant, in his legal submission, said that in Redmond on Dismissal Law [2017], the author states at para 19.24 that “the option to ‘resign or be dismissed’ is sometimes extended by employers for varying motivations. This option should be avoided as a general rule, as a resignation in such circumstances is involuntary and provides the classic stuff of a constructive dismissal claim. Similarly, where an employee clearly resigns in a hasty fashion against the back drop of investigation and disciplinary procedures, reasonableness demands that the employer consider whether this resignation should be set aside [An Employee v An Employer ADJ-00003442 – 8 March 2017]. He also referred to paragraph 23.36 where is states “It is a principle of law that where an employee resigns because the employer has threatened that if does not resign he will be dismissed, the mechanics of the resignation do not cause that to be other than a dismissal, as the British EAT in Sheffield v Oxford Controls Company Ltd [[1979] IRLR 133] reiterated. It is the threat which causes the employee to resign”

The complainant presented a number of leading authorities relating to constructive dismissal including Fyfe & McGrouther LTD. Byrne [1977] IRLR 29, where the complainant was found to be constructively dismissed where the employer called in the police to investigate the employee. In Cawley v South Wales Electricity Board [1985] IRLR 89 where the employers behaviour is unreasonable to amount to constructive dismissal the dismissal normally would be considered unfair. In Kennedy v Foxfield Inns Ltd. t/a The Imperial Hotel [1995] ELR 216 and in Curran V Graham Anthony & Co. LTD [UD 495/2006] where the complainants in those situations were left with no choice but to terminate their respective employment.

The complainant points to the decision in Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, and said that the respondent suffered no “loss, damage or detriment” to anyone seeing or being offended by these photographs. The complainant said that respondent breached his contractual and constitutional right to fair procedures by exaggerating the possible allegations to the level that the outcome of the investigative or disciplinary process is inevitable accordingly, he was denied natural justice and the protection of fair procedures. The complainant argued that even if he had a valid explanation there was little point or opportunity to give it as the decision was already made.

In summary the complainant claims that he was subjected to persistent, inappropriate and unwarranted criticism from Ms. A, he was demoted, and he was ultimately managed out of the business. He claims that his personal photographs were inadvertently stored on to the respondent’s IT system during the transfer of data from a work-phone, the vast amount of these photographs were unremarkable to the respondent, there is no loss, detriment or damage as a result of the photographs that were considered offensive and the complainant contends they should not be. He said that he was confronted with an allegation, presented as being more serious than it was, in reality, leading to an involuntary resignation. He claims that the respondents behaviour was unreasonable and the complainant justified in resigning his position without access to natural justice and fair procedures.

The following is a brief summary of the respondent’s evidence.

The respondent is a global payment security company operating on site where the complainant had worked on a 24-hour x 7-day Network Operating Centre (NOC). The respondent accepts that the complainant was originally employed as a NOC Director from 24 August 2015 until 26 September 2016 and was demoted by agreement to the role of NOC Technician until he resigned his employment on 19 January 2017 following a difficult period working with it and where it was informed by the complainant that shift work did not agree with him.

The respondent said that the complainant’s employment was not without difficulties, and his performance deteriorated significantly from April 2016. There were a lot of issues that were addressed by Ms. A and she provided him with as much assistance during that time as was possible. Ms. A claims that the respondent provided the complainant with certain accommodation in relation to his personal and family life that was not available to others and this in turn placed additional work on others in his team. The respondent said the complainant was the subject of a number of disciplinary meetings relating to poor performance and conduct. The respondent said that all these disciplinary meetings were conducted in accordance with the respondent disciplinary procedures.

The respondent said that in late September 2016, Ms. A and the complainant agreed that he would step down from his role as NOC Director to take up a post as NOC Technician on a reduced salary from €43,000 to €40,000. The respondent said that the complainant appeared very relieved as he was not comfortable in the Director role.

The respondent maintains that Mr. B found images on its network drives which would have been visible to all of the respondent’s employees. It claims that these files gravely compromised the security of the respondent’s IT systems and were a breach of the respondent’s IT policies, which the complainant was fully aware of. The respondent said, “the images were of the complainant, of children, a topless woman and of what appears to be the complainant with drugs and related paraphernalia” and owing to the seriousness of the matter the complainant was asked to attend a meeting on 19 January 2017 to discuss in private. The respondent said that this was not a disciplinary meeting, that the respondent had carried out disciplinary meetings with the complainant in the past and followed the necessary procedures. The propose of this meeting was to alert the complainant of its discovery.

The respondent said that at first the complainant denied placing the images on the IT network drives, and then later said he had backed up his work phone before he passed it on to Mr. B. It was the respondent’s position that the complainant could have compromised the respondent’s entire network and he should have been more careful. The respondent said that the complainant apologised for this and said that he was finding shift work very difficult and wanted to resign anyways. The respondent said that the complainant returned to his desk where he drafted and sent an email of resignation. He then left the building accompanied by Ms. A and agreed to meet within a few days to finalise everything, including his P45, employment references, etc.

The respondent said that the complainant had met with Ms. A on 24 January 2017, it was an entirely amicable and professional meeting. Ms. A said that the complainant had failed to provide an email address for his “exit interview” with HR and she wanted to get an address from him, she also mentioned to him that her husband had potential IT contacts and opportunities should he want to keep in contact with her as it might be of assistance to him.

The respondent’s in its legal submission said this is a case of constructive dismissal as opposed to unfair dismissal as there was no dismissal, the complainant tendered his resignation at a meeting, which was not a disciplinary meeting. The respondent said that the complainant never sought to retract the resignation despite having an opportunity to do so after 19 January 2017. The respondent said that the burden of proof is for the complainant to establish in such instances. The respondent said statutory definition for constructive dismissal comprises of two tests, either of both of which the complainant must be in a position to establish in order to terminate his contract of employment. (Western Excavating (EEC) LTD Sharp v [1978]). The respondent cited A General Operative v A Religious Society ADJ-00002814 in relation to claims of constructive dismissal where the critical issue of behaviour was addressed “… the criterion regarding the behaviour is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the complainant’s resignation…”

The respondent said that it is a well-established principle of any constructive dismissal that an employee should exhaust the employer’s relevant grievance procedures in an effort to resolve any issues/ problems. (Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd UD 474/1981) or at least communicate the grievance (Morans v ESB UD 347/1997) or explore all the options available (Mooney v CPC Foods (Ireland) Ltd UD 383/1987). The respondent said that the complainant prior to 19 January 2017 never raised a grievance, or even communicated a grievance or even tried to resolve any grievance prior to terminating his employment. The respondent claims consequently that the complainant has failed to establish that he was constructively dismissed.

The respondent said in relation to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973, the complainant was paid for the entire month of January. He left on 19 January 2017 and never returned following his holidays. Therefore, he is not entitled to the balance of his contractual notice period of 1 month.

CA-00010642-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 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.

The term Constructive Dismissal is not specifically mentioned in the definitions of the Unfair Dismissals legislation. The definition relied on can, however, be found in Section 1 of the Act:

1 (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”

There is much difference of opinion on the evidence from the parties in relation to the events of 19 January 2017. I must, therefore consider on the balance of probabilities what actually happened at that meeting and whether because of the respondent’s conduct, the complainant was entitled to terminate his contract of employment or whether it was reasonable for him to do so at all.

In considering this case I note the positions outlined by the complainant and the respondent prior to the events of the meeting on 19 January 2017. I note that the complainant was a NOC Director and had managed a NOC team, he had difficulties in the role and took a role as a NOC technician where both parties accept suited him better. I can appreciate that there were difficulties in the relationship between the complainant and Ms. A. I have heard from both sides as to the difference of opinion shared on the different events that they would have clashed on. I have noted that the complainant was disciplined during his time working with the respondent and he had not filed a formal grievance with respect to the various issues raised. I am satisfied that the complainant and the respondent appeared to be satisfied with the new arrangements as of 17 January 2017, two days before the complainant’s impromptu resignation.

In the lead up to that meeting of 19 January 2017 I am satisfied that the respondent conducted its own audit of its IT systems so it would not be found wanting and/or be embarrassed of anything inappropriate appearing in advance of the parent company running a more formal audit on all its company’s systems. This is when the complainant’s personal material was found saved on the respondent’s IT files and this is the catalyst for the meeting on the 19 January 2017.

The case turns on the events of 19 January 2017 and I have been given two very different accounts of what happened at the same meeting. This is not just a case of different versions of what was said, this is more fundamental. It is a case of either the complainant was told to resign or deal with the consequences, as suggested by the complainant, or the complainant offered to resign based on the realisation of the possible trouble caused, and him not being happy with his new arrangements – shift work, as suggested by the respondent. There were only three people in the room that categorically know what actually happened there that morning. I have carefully studied all the submissions and the evidence adduced at the hearing.

The respondent’s evidence was that there were multiple photographs (in the hundreds) uncovered and it printed down the photo’s “that would have most impact on [the complainant]”. The respondent said that meeting of the 19 January 2017 was not an investigation meeting nor a disciplinary meeting, it was to inform the complainant what was found. The respondent points to the previous disciplinary meetings and how they were conducted. I accept that this was not a formal disciplinary meeting and its purpose was to present the respondent’s findings to the complainant. I am satisfied that the contents of the images and their placement on the respondent’s computer drives were of such a nature as to raise serious questions for the complainant to answer and could have led to disciplinary and other possible actions. I am satisfied that all parties are aware of that and this could have been very embarrassing and difficult for everyone to face up to. Firstly, for the complainant, for the images themselves and their placement on his employer’s IT system. Secondly, for the respondent and the potential action that it may have to pursue and the possible reputational damage in the eyes of its parent company in the US. It is clear from the evidence throughout the hearing and in particular from Ms. A’s evidence that ‘managing’ the Irish branch and ‘managing’ what message reaches the USA parent body seemed very important to the respondent. Messages were tailored to cause less attention, pre-checks done at a local level on the Irish IT systems ahead of the US security check.

The complainant said that he was given an ultimatum to either resign or be sacked there and then. He said that he asked for some time to think about it and was told that was not an option. He said he felt he had no choice and no chance to think about his options. He said he was told to go out and write out his letter of resignation and he was escorted off the premises. The respondent said that the complainant obviously came to his senses, realised what was about to happen and the security breaches. The respondent also said at this point the complainant raised an issue that the shift work was not really working out for him and it made his decision for him. The respondent said that he chose to resign there and then, he prepared his letter of resignation and left the premises.

I am satisfied that the appearance of these images has placed everyone involved in a very compromising position. I would suggest that both parties would have preferred the images never to have appeared. However, they did and they do have to be dealt with. It is clear that the complainant has compromised himself and the respondent and is in a very dubious position. I am satisfied that he and the respondent know that equally. I believe that by using that as a possible lever to oust the complainant from his employment and therefore not having to deal with any disciplinary or other further action with the possible embarrassing consequences on the respondent before its parent company would be seen as favourable. This, coupled with the unchallenged report of the complainant’s satisfaction in his job from just two days previous, cast a doubt that he was undergoing difficulties with shift work which the respondent maintains was part of the reason why he chose to go. On the contrary, I am satisfied that the respondent had made significant tweaks to his work arrangements to ensure the shift arrangement worked for him. He raises a concern over the respondent’s position that the complainant cited shift work as one of the issues he wanted to resign once he was confronted with the images.

I also note the timing of the whole process. The events after the meeting appear rather peculiar, a decision was made within the meeting room which led to an immediate letter of resignation being constructed and to an immediate exit from the premises. The parties would appear shell shocked, particularly the complainant with what has unfolded and wrapped up proceedings in lightening quick time. That ties in with the complainant’s opinion of events where he says that he asked for some time to consider his position but was told to resign or deal with the consequences.

Another question which was not addressed by the respondent adequately was the substantial security breach of its IT policy by the complainant. I am told that he loaded up personal files on the respondent’s IT systems and he knew there were implications. However, the respondent’s evidence is that it simply allowed the complainant to opt-out of his employment through a resignation and not deal with the possibility of the IT security breach and possibly other implications.

Although the complainant would appear not to have raised any grievances as to how he claims that he was treated I have heard various differences of opinion between the complainant and Ms. A which demonstrates that their working relationship was not perfect. I also note that the complainant was demoted which again reinforces that things were not running smoothly. Another contradiction of events is that on 17 January 2017, it would appear that for the first time in long time the complainant and his employers seem happy with work arrangements and there is no mention of problems with shift work. The respondents evidence is that they printed a number of the images “to make the greatest impact”. The questions not sufficiently answered where, what impact where they trying to make? And what result where they looking from that impact?

Having heard all witnesses, I find that the evidence of the complainant has remained consistent throughout the two days of the hearing, whereas the respondent’s witnesses seem somewhat less assured. I am satisfied that the complainant was met with an ultimatum that if he decided to quit nothing more would be made of this and he would get a good reference. However, if he chose to remain on he could and would have to face the full consequences, whatever that would be. I am satisfied that he was not given any time to consider his options and was cornered into making his decision there and then under severe duress. Having heard from all parties I am satisfied with the steadfast consistency of the complainant’s evidence and I prefer his account.

It has been well documented that this is a complaint of constructive dismissal and the Unfair Dismissals Act and the subsequent supporting jurisprudence have set a high bar in relation to what will justify the termination of a contract of employment. In the case of an employer wishing to terminate a contract of employment, there must be cause, a fair process must have been followed and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable sanctions in relation to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings.

It is relatively easy for an employee to terminate their employment. When an employee terminates the contract of employment and then makes a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal that is a different matter.

I note the reference in ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’ where the author (at p340) writes: "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 true an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance, the duty is an imperative in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist, they should be followed: Conway v Ulster bank Limited. In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning and without first having ‘substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints."

The Supreme Court has said that; ‘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.’

It has been well established Law that in a case of Constructive Dismissal two tests must apply to substantiate a claim. These are,

(a)    Fundamental breach of contract to such a serious degree as to leave an employee with effectively no choice but to resign from the employment.

(b)   Unreasonable behaviour by the employer to such an egregious degree that a reasonable employee would be left with no choice but to resign.

As mentioned above, the crux in this case is in essence whether the respondent forces the complainant to resign his post by the threat of dismissal and other consequences. To this matter and in the context of a discriminatory dismissal claim, I note that the decision of the Labour Court in Millett v Shinkwin [2004] E.L.R. 319 held: “A resignation is a unilateral act which, if expressed in unambiguous and unconditional terms, brings a contract of employment to an end. The contract cannot be reconstructed by the subsequent unilateral withdrawal of the resignation. Where adequate notice is given, the contract is generally terminated in accordance with its terms and since there is no repudiation the acceptance of the resignation by the employer is not required in order to determine the contract.

There is, however, a significant body of authority for the proposition that there are exceptions to this general rule and that there are occasions in which an apparently unconditional and unambiguous resignation may be vitiated by the circumstances in which it is proffered.”

The question here in this precise set of circumstances is whether the complainant’s resignation was a unilateral act, a voluntary act, and this is a matter to be judged objectively. I take specific note of the decision in Sheffield v Oxford Controls Co. Ltd [1979] IRLR 133, EAT where Arnold J said: ‘It is plain, we think, that there must exist a principle, exemplified by the four cases to which we have referred, that where an employee resigns and that resignation is determined upon by him because he prefers to resign rather than be dismissed (the alternative having been expressed to him by the employer in terms of the threat that if he does not resign he will be dismissed), the mechanics of the resignation do not cause that to be other than a dismissal. The cases do not in terms go further than that. We find the principle to be one of causation. In cases such as that we have just hypothesised, and those reported, the causation is the threat. It is the existence of the threat which causes the employee to be willing to sign, and to sign, a resignation letter or to be willing to give and to give the oral resignation. But where that willingness is brought about by other considerations and the actual causation of the resignation is no longer the threat which has been made but is the state of mind of the resigning employee, that he is willing and content to resign on the terms which he has negotiated and which are satisfactory to him, then we think there is no room for the principle to be derived from the decided cases. In such a case he resigns because he is willing to resign as a result of being offered terms which are to him satisfactory terms on which to resign. He is no longer impelled or compelled by the threat of dismissal to resign, but a new matter has come into the history, namely that he has been brought into a condition of mind in which the threat is no longer the operative factor of his decision; it has been replaced by the emergence of terms which are satisfactory. Therefore, we think that the finding that Mr Sheffield had agreed to terms upon which he was prepared to agree to terminate his employment with the company – terms which were satisfactory to him – means that there is no room for the principle and that it is impossible to upset the conclusion of the Tribunal that he was not dismissed.’

I am satisfied that the question for me to answer is what has caused the resignation in this case. I am satisfied that the answer is that the complainant resigned solely as a consequence of the threats that he would be dismissed and would have had to deal with a plethora of serious consequences unless he tendered his resignation immediately and left the premises thereafter. As noted above in the Sheffield v Oxford Controls Co. Ltd decision, resignation of such a nature shall be treated as the employee having been dismissed. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was constructively dismissed and I find in his favour.

CA-00010642-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

In relation to this claim I note that there was confusion in the past as to the possibility of redress under this heading in cases of such a nature. However I am satisfied that Murphy J. in the High Court has confirmed without doubt in the decision Halal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Ltd v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] E.L.R. 49, 59 that an employee who has been “constructively dismissed” cannot claim under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Accordingly, on that basis, I find that this complaint is not well founded and is hereby dismissed.

CA-00010642-001 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

In accordance with Section 7 of the Act and taking all the above into consideration, I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €16,600 (5 months’ pay approx.), which reflects the significant breach going to the root of the contract that was contravened and a further €5,000 which reflects the future loss of earnings taking into consideration the difference in pay between his previous job and his new job. This combined award is therefore €21,600 (twenty-one thousand, six hundred euro). On consideration of the appropriate redress, I have considered that there was no investigation into the complainant’s alleged action of wrong doing and therefore no definite finding against the complainant.

CA-00010642-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

I find that this complaint is not well founded and is hereby dismissed.

Unfair Dismissals Act - Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act - constructive dismissed – resign or be dismissed.