ADJ-00021357

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Recruitment Consultant

Recruitment Agency

Representatives

None

 David Kearney

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00028036-001

29/04/2019

The complainant started work with the respondent on March 21^st, 2018. On April 23^rd 2019 she attended a meeting with the Managing Director. The subject matter of this meeting is in dispute. The claimant alleges that she was dismissed. The respondent alleges that the complainant’s dismissal was not discussed at this meeting, nor was the claimant subjected to pressure to resign.

As outlined above, the complainant started work with the respondent on March 21^st, 2018. On April 23^rd, 2019 she attended a meeting with the Managing Director. The subject matter of this meeting is in dispute. The claimant alleges that she was dismissed at the meeting. In the course thereof, the respondent told the claimant that she was ‘stressed out’ and not suited to her current role. The claimant was offered a lesser role, which she refused. She was then told (by the respondent) that she would prefer if the claimant resigned rather than be dismissed. The claimant acknowledged that ‘I wanted to get out’. However, she also claims that she never actually resigned, though the day after the meeting she got an email (from the respondent) stating that her resignation had been accepted.

As outlined above, the complainant started work with the respondent on March 21^st, 2018. On April 23^rd, 2019 she attended a meeting with the Managing Director. The subject matter of this meeting is in dispute. The claimant alleges that she was dismissed. The respondent alleges that the complainant’s dismissal was not discussed at this meeting, nor was the claimant subjected to pressure to resign.

The respondent absolutely disputes the contention that the claimant was dismissed. Instead she resigned verbally. In support of same, the respondent produced 3 witnesses (with supporting statements) to the effect that, based upon their interactions with the claimant, it was clearly a resignation. The claimant allegedly said that she would not put her resignation in writing as it may affect her ability to draw social welfare.

The respondent contends that all of their actions were consistent with having agreed to facilitate a resignation from an employee who was expressing unhappiness with her role. Furthermore, it is contended that the tone of emails subsequently sent by the respondent to the claimant are nothing but friendly and positive and clearly inconsistent with those of an employer who had just dismissed an employee. It is also argued that if the claimant was of the view at the relevant time that she had been dismissed, then why was there no replying email denying her resignation; why was there no appeal; why was there no letter of protest to anyone or action of any kind to support her contention? The respondent contends that the answer thereto is because she had in fact resigned – a conclusion supported by all of the evidence.

Without wishing or intending to give rise to any impugnment as to the credibility or integrity of the claimant, in the absence of supporting witnesses or persuasive documentation, in the face of the respondent’s arguments – and especially the testimony of three separate witnesses – the case circumstances do not give rise to what may be described as an ‘unfair dismissal’ under the relevant legislation.

The claim is not well founded and is not upheld.

Dismissal    Resignation