Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Social Care Worker

A Provider of Community Support Programs

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00020116-001

02/07/2018

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

CA-00020118-001

02/07/2018

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

CA-00020119-001

02/07/2018

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

CA-00020116-001

02/07/2018

The complainant submitted complaints on the 2nd of July 2018 under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant at the hearing submitted that the three complaints made including this complaint reference CA-00020116-001 resulted from penalisation following protected disclosures made by the complaint.   It is further submitted that the complainant was forced to resign her position following such penalisation and that this amounts to a constructive dismissal.      I proceeded to a hearing of these matters on the 28th of February 2018.     The complainant advised the hearing that this complaint reference CA-00020116-001 was not being pursued as a separate complaint but would be comprehended in the complaint of penalisation under CA-00020119-001.

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  

The complainant advised the hearing that this complaint reference CA-00020116-001 was not being pursued as a separate complaint but would be comprehended in the complaint of penalisation under CA-00020119-001.

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  

The complainant at the hearing submitted that she was penalised by having her hours reduced by the respondent following protected disclosures being made by her to the respondent in respect of regulatory matters. The complainant advised the hearing that this claim under the Organisation of Working time Act was not being pursued as a separate complaint but would be comprehended in the complaint of penalisation under CA-00020119-001. Accordingly, this claim is not upheld.

The complainant at the hearing has opted to have this matter dealt with as part of the claim under CA-00020119-001. Accordingly, this claim is not upheld.

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

CA-00020119-001

02/07/2018

The complainant submitted complaints on the 2nd of July 2018 under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant at the hearing submitted that the three complaints made by her resulted from penalisation following protected disclosures made by the complaint.   It was submitted that the complainant’s unfair dismissal claim under this reference CA-00020119-001 referred to penalisation of the complainant following a protected disclosure. It is further submitted that the complainant was forced to resign her position following such penalisation and that this amounts to a constructive dismissal.     This is dealt with in a separate decision in respect of CA-00020118-001. I proceeded to a hearing of these matters on the 28th of February 2018.

The complainant advised the hearing that the complaint form referring the unfair dismissal claim ref CA-00020119-001 referred specifically to penalisation of the complainant following protected disclosures.   The complainant is seeking for this complaint to be treated as a complaint of penalisation following protected disclosures in accordance with the Protected Disclosures Act.  

This complaint form CA-00020119-001 refers to “protected disclosures which caused detriment and constructive dismissal due to regulatory complaints and reports and in respect of reports of assault and mistreatment”.

Having considered this matter I note that the complaint form does set out in the narrative of the form the allegation that the complainant was penalised following alleged protected disclosures and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of this claim from the outset given that a copy of the complaint form was sent to the respondent on the 10th of July 2018.   I am also mindful of the fact that the complaint form is not a statutory form, but a form intended to set out in broad detail the facts of the complaint.   Accordingly, I have decided to allow this complaint to proceed as a complaint of penalisation following protected disclosures made in accordance with the Protected disclosures Act.

The complainant at the hearing stated that all three of her complaints resulted from treatment she was subjected to following protected disclosures being made by the complaint.   The complainant advised the hearing that her unfair dismissal claim under this reference CA-00020119-001 referred specifically to penalisation of the complainant following protected disclosures and she is seeking for this complaint to be treated as a complaint of penalisation following protected disclosures in accordance with the Protected Disclosures Act.  

The complaint form CA-00020119-001 refers to “protected disclosures which caused detriment and constructive dismissal due to regulatory complaints and reports and in respect of reports of assault and mistreatment”.

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  

The complainant at the hearing stated that all three of her complaints resulted from treatment she was subjected to following protected disclosures being made by the complaint.   The complainant advised the hearing that the complaint form referring the unfair dismissal claim ref CA-00020119-001 referred specifically to penalisation of the complainant following protected disclosures

This complaint form CA-00020119-001 refers to “protected disclosures which caused detriment and constructive dismissal due to regulatory complaints and reports and in respect of reports of assault and mistreatment”.

The Complainant claims that she was subjected to penalisation by the Respondent contrary to Section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 after making a number of protected disclosures. The Complainant also claims that she was unfairly dismissed by way of constructive dismissal, having terminated her employment, in accordance with Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The Complainant advised the hearing that she believes that she was penalised when she complained to the respondent about outsourced childcare. The complainant asserts that the protected disclosures made by her related to “regulatory complaints and reports and in respect of reports of assault and mistreatment”.

The complaint was submitted on the 2nd of July 2018 therefore the cognisable period for the complaint dates from the 3rd of February 2018.

The complainant advised the hearing that she made several reports about regulatory issues in 2016, 2017 and 2018.   The complainant also advised the hearing that she also made a complaint following an assault on her by a service user Ms. F.   She asserts that these reports/complaints amount to protected disclosures under Section 5(3).

Protected disclosures

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

   (2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

   (a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

   (b) it came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.

   (3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act—

(a) that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed,  

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation, other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services,  

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

   (e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged,

   (f) that an unlawful or otherwise improper use of funds or resources of a public body, or of other public money, has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(g) that an act or omission by or on behalf of a public body is oppressive, discriminatory or grossly negligent or constitutes gross mismanagement, or

   (h) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

Section 3 Protected Disclosures Act 2014 defines penalisation for the purposes of the act as follows:

“penalisation” means any act or omission that affects a worker to the worker’s detriment, and in particular includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) the imposition or administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty),

(e) unfair treatment,

(f) coercion, intimidation or harassment,

(g) discrimination, disadvantage or unfair treatment,

(h) injury, damage or loss, and

(i) threat of reprisal;

Section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 provides the protection against penalisation for having made a protected disclosure as follows:

12(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure. The Protected Disclosures Act includes in its definition of penalisation ‘demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion, transfer of duties, change of location of work etc., unfair treatment, or the threat of reprisal’, among others.

My role is to determine whether the complainant has been subjected to penalisation in retaliation for her having made protected disclosures and furthermore in CA-00020118-001 whether it was reasonable for the complainant to consider herself as being constructively dismissed due to such penalisation.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had commenced working with the respondent in March 2016. She was employed as a social care worker for the respondent which provides after care customised support services for young people over 18 with complex needs at a range of locations. The complainant stated that she provided one to one care and support for vulnerable marginalised young adults who have come from care and who are sometimes violent and may lack self-regulation.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had submitted reports to the respondent in respect of regulatory issues in 2016 2017 and 2018. The complainant in support of this submitted a statement which she had written following a meeting with the respondent on the 6th of June 2018.   The complainant advised the hearing that this meeting had taken place after her resignation which she had submitted to the respondent in writing on the 6th of May 2018.  

The complainant also provided a document dated 13th of November 2016 entitled “My professional concerns on a personal level and on a best policy and practice level for our client (Ms. S) and her new baby”.   This document is a memorandum from the complainant to the respondent’s management team in which she requests copies of various documents such as the respondent’s Mission statement, Health and Safety statement, First Aid Statement etc.   Within this document the complainant seeks clarification on a number of issues in relation to anticipated changes in her role due to the fact that service user Ms. S was pregnant and due to have her baby in the coming weeks. The complainant sought clarification on a number of issues which she submits were relevant with the arrival of a service users baby given that she and other support workers on Ms. S’s care team would now have responsibility for the care of Ms. S and her baby.    This document was dated 13th of November 2016. The complainant submitted a further document dated the 10th of May 2017 which contained an email from the complainant to her team leader Ms. C. This email referred to the respondent’s company handbook and stated that the complainant had gone through all of the parts highlighted by Ms. C, with her manager Mr. J and that Mr. J had chosen the option he wanted deleted. The complainant in this email proceeded to make a number of observations and suggested additions in respect of various sections of the handbook, she also offers to go over the hand book again in case she has missed anything.   This email is dated the 10th of May 2017. These documents dated 13th of November 2016 and 10th of May 2017 are submitted by the complainant as evidence of regulatory complaints and reports which she submits amount to protected disclosures which resulted in her having her hours reduced and being subjected to investigation and disciplinary procedures in March and May 2018.  

The complainant advised the hearing that following these disclosures two allegations were made against her in March and April 2018 and on 16th of March 2018 her line manager Ms. C advised her that she had been asked to remove the complainant from the care team of Ms. S following a request from Ms. S.   The complainant was advised that an informal complaint had been made against her by Ms S in respect of language allegedly used by the complainant.

The complainant stated that she was removed from Ms. S ‘s care team following this alleged complaint but was advised that she would continue to be paid in respect of shifts rostered on that team for the remainder of the month.   The complainant stated that she did receive her salary for the month of March but that some of her shift payments for he months of April and May were still outstanding in respect of shifts she would have worked if she had not been removed from Ms. S’s care team.   The complainant stated that she was called to a meeting on the 11th of April 2018 with four managers.   She stated that she was not informed of the allegations against her prior to the hearing and was told that there was an informal complaint against her.     There was a reference made to her having previously been removed from three other teams which the complainant states had never happened.

The complainant advised the hearing that she was assaulted by a service user Ms. F on the 1st of April 2018.     The complainant told the hearing that following this she had lodged a report in respect of the incident including a reference to her having used a restraint on the service user.   The complainant stated that nothing was done by her employer to enquire into her welfare following this assault but instead her employer inquired into the complainant’s behaviour during the incident.   The complainant stated that her employer raised an issue in respect of the complainant having restrained the service user and stated that this was contrary to their policies.   The complainant advised the hearing that she had gone out on sick leave from the 6th of April 2018 following the assault.   The complainant stated that she was removed from the care team of the service user involved on the 29th of April 2018. In addition, the complainant was informed on this date that there was an allegation of gross misconduct made against her. The complainant stated that she attended a meeting on the 2nd of May in respect of this allegation but was simply told that it was under investigation.   The complainant was advised that she was being removed from the care team of Ms. F at the time but that she would continue to be paid for her rostered shifts in Ms. Fs house.   The complainant told the hearing that the respondent had later confirmed on the 4th of May 2018 that they were “satisfied that the allegation was only alleged”. The complainant resigned on the 6th of May 2018.

The complainant stated that she was subjected to a botched investigation. The complainant told the hearing that the outcome of this inquiry was that it would not affect her future employment. She added that no procedures were followed. The complainant stated that following this she went out on sick leave on the 6th of April 2018 and then resigned her position by letter dated the 5th of May 2018.

The complainant advised the hearing that this treatment took place after her making protected disclosures in November 2016 and May 2017.  

The complainant told the hearing that following her detailed resignation letter she was called to a meeting with managing director Mr. M.   It is submitted that the note of this meeting dated 6th of June 2018 identifies the Protected disclosures made by the complainant in accordance with section 5 (3).  

The complainant stated that she was penalised by having her hours reduced and that this reduction in her hours took place after she was removed from the care teams of Ms. S in March 2018 and Ms. F in April 2018. The complainant submits that the result of her being removed from these teams meant that her hours were reduced which resulted in a reduction of her income to 1/3 of its previous level which she submits amount to acts of penalisation.   The complainant submits that following such penalisation she had no option but to resign her employment and consider herself constructively dismissed.   This claim of constructive dismissal is dealt with separately under CA-00020118-001.     In considering the case before me I must first be satisfied that penalisation took place as a reaction to the complainants making a protected disclosure.

Section 5 (3) lists the ‘relevant wrongdoings’ for the purposes of the Act, and incudes the likelihood of the commission of an offence, failure to discharge a legal obligation, a possible miscarriage of justice, a threat to health and safety etc. Section 12 sets out the definition of penalisation

The complainant in her own evidence advised the hearing that the respondent had raised an issue in respect of her having restrained the service user who assaulted her. The complainant told the hearing that the respondent had advised her that restraining the service user was against the respondent’s policy. The complainant went on to state that she was effectively removed from that service users care team on the 16th of April 2018 and officially informed of this on the 20th of April 2018.  

The complainant stated that her removal from Ms. F’s care team had the effect of a reduction in the complainants’ hours in April 2018 as she could no longer be assigned to look after Ms. F. The complainant states that she was removed from Ms. S’s care team after an alleged complaint in March 2018. This was notified to the complainant by her team leader Ms. C.

The complainant has submitted that the reduction in her hours following her removal from the care team of Ms. S in March 2018 and Ms. F in April 2018 and the invoking of the disciplinary procedure against her following the assault on her by Ms. B amount to penalisation following protected disclosures. It is further submitted that it was following such penalisation that the complainant considered herself to be constructively dismissed on the 6th of May 2018.

Even if I am satisfied that the complainants actions amounted to protected disclosures then the penalisation must have arisen as a direct consequence of the making of that disclosure. In the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation v McLoughlin (PDD192) the Labour Court stated:

“As this Court pointed out in O’Neill v Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd. (2010 E.L.R.21) it is necessary for a complainant to show that the detriment of which he or she complains was imposed “for” having committed a protected act. This suggest that where there is more than one causal factor in the chain of events leading to the detriment complained of the commission of a protected act must be an operative cause in the sense that “but for” the complainant having committed the protected act he or she would not have suffered the detriment.”

I am being asked to make a finding that the complainants raising of issues in November 2016 regarding changes required in preparation for the arrival of a service users baby and the complainant’s provision of observations and suggestions in respect of the company handbook in May 2017 resulted in her being penalised by being disciplined and removed from two care teams in March and May 2018 which resulted in a reduction in her hours. In addition, the complainant herself gave evidence that the respondent had initiated disciplinary action against her following her reporting of an assault by a service user in which she had restrained the service user. I note from the complainant’s evidence that the respondent’s investigation into the alleged complaint by Ms. S was still ongoing at the time of the complainant’s resignation.   The complainant’s evidence regarding the allegation in respect of Ms. F was that the respondent had confirmed to her on the 4th of May 2018 that they were “satisfied that the allegation was only alleged”. The complainant resigned on the 6th of May 2018.

Having given this matter a great deal of consideration and having regard to the evidence adduced I am not satisfied based on the balance of probabilities that the complainant was penalised as a reaction to her having made complaints which amounted to a protected disclosure.

Accordingly, the complaint of penalisation following the making of protected disclosures is not upheld.

The complaint of penalisation following the making of protected disclosures is not upheld.

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

CA-00020119-001

02/07/2018

The complainant submitted complaints on the 2nd of July 2018 under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant at the hearing submitted that the three complaints made by her resulted from penalisation following protected disclosures made by the complaint.   It was submitted that the complainant’s unfair dismissal claim under this reference CA-00020119-001 referred to penalisation of the complainant following a protected disclosure. It is further submitted that the complainant was forced to resign her position following such penalisation and that this amounts to a constructive dismissal.   This is dealt with in a separate decision in respect of CA-00020118-001. I proceeded to a hearing of these matters on the 28th of February 2018.

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  

The complainant at the hearing stated that all three of her complaints resulted from treatment she was subjected to following protected disclosures being made by the complaint.   The complainant advised the hearing that her unfair dismissal claim referred specifically to her being left with no option but to resign after she was penalised for making protected disclosures.

The complaint form CA-00020118-001 refers to “Unreasonable conduct and breach of contract such as to leave me with no option but to resign. The Respondent undertook to speak to me about my resignation but did not do so”

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  

The complainant advised the hearing that her unfair dismissal claim referred specifically to her being left with no option but to resign after she was penalised for making protected disclosures. The complainant submitted that she was constructively dismissed on the 6th of May 2018.

The applicable Law in relation to Constructive Dismissal is as follows:

Constructive Dismissal is defined under Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as follows:

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 onus is on the Complainant to prove that, due to the behaviour of the respondent, there was no other option for her than to resign from her employment.

There are two tests in relation to proving that a Constructive Dismissal has occurred. These are the “Contract Test” and the” Reasonableness Test.” Both relate to the behaviour of the employer.

In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27 the “contract test” is summarised 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.”

Addressing the “reasonableness test” the decision summarises the conduct of the employer as follows:

“whether the employer 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.”

It is also well established that a Complainant is required to initiate and exhaust the company’s internal grievance procedures, in an effort to resolve their grievance, prior to resigning and submitting a claim for constructive dismissal. This concept is clearly set out in Reid v Oracle EMEA Ltd [UD1350/2014] where the EAT stated; “It is incumbent on any employee to utilise and exhaust all internal remedies made available to him or her unless he can show that the said remedies are unfair”

The behaviour of the employer in such scenarios is referred to by the EAT in Donnegan Vs County Limerick VEC [UD828/2011] where it is stated: “In particular, the claimant must show that the respondent acted in such a way that no ordinary person, could or would continue in the workplace” and also in McCormack v Dunnes Stores [UD 1421/2008], where it is stated: “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”.

The complainant in the first instance submitted that she was forced to resign following her penalisation for making protected disclosures.

The complainant at the hearing stated that she wished to hang all of her claims on the protected disclosure. I have already found in my decision in respect of CA-00020118-001 that the complaint of penalisation following the making of protected disclosures is not well founded.

However, for the sake of completion and given that the present claim is a claim of constructive unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act I must also look at the contract and reasonableness test when in examining whether the complainant was justified in considering herself to be constructively dismissed from her employment on the 6th of May 2018.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had commenced working with the respondent in March 2016. She was employed as a social care worker for the respondent who provides live in after care customised support services for young people over 18 with complex needs at a range of locations. The complainant stated that she provided one to one care and support for vulnerable marginalised young adults who have come from care and who are sometimes violent and may lack self-regulation.

The complainant in her letter of resignation dated 6th of May 2018 stated that she could no longer work within the respondent organisation due to the treatment she was subjected to on the previous 8 weeks. I note that the complainant as per her own evidence was out on sick leave for four of those eight weeks from the 6th of April 2018.  

The complainant in outlining this treatment referred specifically to the fact that she was subjected to an investigation in March 2018 following an alleged complaint by service user Ms. S.   The complainant was advised by her team leader Ms. C that an informal complaint had been made against her by Ms S in respect of language allegedly used by the complainant.   The complainant advised the hearing that she was removed from Ms. S ‘s care team on the 16th of March 2018 during the investigation of this alleged complaint which was still ongoing at the time of her resignation on 6th of May.  

The complainant stated that she was removed from Ms. S ‘s care team following this alleged complaint, but she was advised that she would continue to receive her salary for the remainder of the month.   The complainant stated that she did receive her salary for the month of March but that some of her salary payments for the months of April and May were still outstanding in respect of shifts she would have worked if she had not been removed from Ms. S’s care team.   The complainant stated that she was called to a meeting on the 11th of April 2018 with four managers.   She stated that she was not informed of the allegations against her prior to the hearing and was told that there was an informal complaint against her.   There was a reference made to her having previously been removed from three other teams which the complainant states had never happened.

The complainant also advised the hearing that she was assaulted by a service user Ms. F on the 1st of April 2018 following which she states she was offered no support by the respondent. The complainant advised the hearing that following this assault she was subjected to a disciplinary process during which she was again removed from the service users care team further reducing her hours.  

The complainant advised the hearing that she was assaulted by Ms. F on the 1st of April 2018.   The complainant told the hearing that following this she had lodged a report in respect of the incident including a reference to her having used a restraint on the service user.   The complainant stated that nothing was done by her employer to enquire into the complainant’s welfare following this assault but instead her employer inquired into the complainant’s behaviour during the incident.   The complainant stated that her employer raised an issue in respect of the complainant having restrained the service user and stated that this was contrary to their policies.   The complainant advised the hearing that she had gone out on sick leave from the 6th of April 2018 following the assault.   The complainant stated that she was removed from the care team of the service user involved on the 29th of April 2018.     In addition, the complainant was informed on this date that there was an allegation of gross misconduct made against her. The complainant stated that she attended a meeting on the 2nd of May in respect of this allegation but was simply told that it was under investigation. The complainant was advised that she was being removed from the care team of Ms. F at the time but that she would continue to be paid for her rostered shifts in Ms. Fs house.   The complainant told the hearing that the respondent had later confirmed on the 4th of May 2018 that they were “satisfied that the allegation was only alleged”. The complainant resigned on the 6th of May 2018.

The complainant stated that she was subjected to a botched investigation.   The complainant told the hearing that the outcome of this inquiry was that it would not affect her future employment. She added that no procedures were followed. The complainant stated that following this she went out on sick leave on the 6th of April 2018 and then resigned her position by letter dated the 6th of May 2018.

The complainant in her own evidence advised the hearing that the respondent had taken issue with the way in which she had dealt with the assault on her by Ms. F and she advised the hearing that an issue was raised in respect of her having restrained the service user. The complainant told the hearing that the respondent had advised her that restraining the service user was against the respondent’s policy.   The complainant went on to state that she was effectively removed from the service users care team on the 16th of April 2018 and officially informed of this on the 20th of April 2018.  

The complainant stated that her removal from Ms. F’s care team had the effect of a reduction in the complainants’ hours in April 2018 as she could no longer be assigned to look after Ms. F. The complainant states that she was also removed from Ms. S’s care team after an alleged complaint and during the investigation of this alleged complaint.

The complainant stated that she had been advised by the respondent that she would be paid for her rostered shifts on both care teams during the investigation, but she stated that she was still owed money for these shifts. The complainant submits that the result of her being removed from the care teams of Ms. S in March 2018 and Ms. F in April 2018 during the investigation and disciplinary process was that her hours were reduced which resulted in a reduction of her income to 1/3 of its previous level. The complainant submits that this treatment left her with no option but to resign her employment and consider herself constructively dismissed. I note from the complainant’s evidence that the respondent’s investigation into the alleged complaint by Ms. S was still ongoing at the time of the complainant’s resignation.   The complainant’s evidence regarding the allegation in respect of Ms. F was that the respondent had confirmed to her on the 4th of May 2018 that they were “satisfied that the allegation was only alleged”. The complainant resigned on the 6th of May 2018.

Having already concluded that the complainant was not penalised for making protected disclosures and having regard to the evidence adduced I am not satisfied that the complainant in the circumstances was left with no option but to terminate her employment with the respondent on the 6th of May 2018.  Consequently, the Complainant’s claim of constructive dismissal is not upheld.

I find that the complaint of constructive dismissal is not upheld.