ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013115

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/08/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as an Accounts Assistant from 7 March 2016 until 30 January 2018. The Complainant submitted a complaint for constructive dismissal on the basis that throughout her time in employment she was bullied, harassed, faced sexism, endured an adverse work environment, and has been excluded by the conduct of her fellow employees. She maintained that her complaints were not dealt with by the Respondent as a consequence she had to leave her job due to the conduct of her employer.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted that when she started her employment in March 2016 she was happy. She worked in an open plan office and reported to the Accounts Payable Manager. The Complainant advised that she had initially been taken on the temporary position as an employee was on maternity leave and where she was reporting to the Office Manager. The Complainant advised that after a month she was offered a full-time position.

The Complainant maintained that after a couple months she was called in to a meeting and she was asked to take over some of the Office Manager’s work. The Complainant believed the Office Manager was embarrassed by the situation that the Complainant was willing to help. The Complainant advised the Office Manager did not talk to her after this and that the attitude of other employees changed towards her. She explained that from that point onwards she was treated differently by her colleagues.

The Complainant submitted that she brought her concerns to the Operations Manager and the Operations Manager told her that the Office Manager did not like her but that she was to ignore the Office Manager and get on with her work.

The Complainant submitted that in August 2016 she was asked by the Operations Manager to attend the meeting with the Financial Manager and where she was asked to move upstairs to work with the Financial Manager. The Operations Manager explained to the Complainant that she felt it would be a better environment for the Complainant.   The Complainant contended that once she went upstairs her relations with her fellow colleagues deteriorated.

Explaining some of her concerns the Complainant advised that part of her duties included working at the reception desk in the morning, and after her first 6 to 12 months of working the majority of staff used the back door in the morning so they did not have to say hello to the Complainant when they arrived at work. The Complainant brought these concerns to management and maintained she was just laughed at.

The Complainant also asked management if she could have some help with reception duties a couple of mornings a week but that she did not get any help. The Complainant also advised that some incoming calls would have been diverted to her desk when and when she raised this issue with the receptionist she was told she was being unreasonable despite the fact that she was busy doing her own work and was not in a position to answer the incoming calls when in her office. The Complainant maintained the receptionist told staff that she was moody. The Complainant also submitted that she would have been shouted at by other colleagues. The Complainant maintained that she gave 100% to her work but that she began to feel cut off by the staff downstairs and where she felt she could not have coffee with them.  

The Complainant submitted that she thought that when she had raised her concerns with the Operations Manager that the Operations Manager had been discussing them with management. However, the Complainant has concluded that the Operations Manager was not telling management anything, and her complaints were being ignored and dismissed. However she was not aware of this until an incident occurred in September 2017.

On 19 September 2017 an issue arose between the Complainant and a colleague regarding payments not being made on time. The Complainant had been asked to include the Financial Manager in an email regarding this matter. When the colleague received the email, he rang her and aggressively shouted at her telling her she had no authority to send the email. The Financial Manager was present when the Complainant had received the telephone call. Following the call, she was upset, and she maintained the Financial Manager did not know what to say and gave her tissues.  

As a consequence of this issue the Complainant handed in a letter of resignation on 19 September 2017 to the Financial Manager. She submitted that the Financial Manager shared the letter with other members of management and when she arrived into work the next day she was met in reception by a Director and the General Manager. The managers told her that they were completely unaware of the problems she was having. It was at that stage the Complainant realised the Operations Manager had not been passing any of her concerns to management. She explained to management that it was not her problem if management were not communicating with each other and she stated they agreed with her, told her they thought she was a good girl, and asked her not to leave. The Financial Manager told her that he would work with her and would try to support her. She therefore agreed to stay because she thought once management knew what was going the situation would become better for her. However, she maintained there was no further discussions with the Financial Manager about her leaving from that point, and she maintained that nobody including management came to her after she had raised her concerns to senior management.

The Complainant maintained the following week she had a meeting with buyers and the Director, but as the Director was drunk at the meeting she did not feel comfortable talking to him about her issues. She also maintained that the Director had told fellow employees about her complaints and she concluded that they saw this as her complaining about them, and as a consequence life got worse for her. The Complainant submitted that she was told by buyers about what she had said to management. At this stage the Complainant believed her situation was going to improve as all managers knew she was having a problem. However, she advised the Director did not try to resolve the situation.

The Complainant advised that around this time she was also asked by the Financial Manager about some records she was working on. The Complainant advised she was studying towards her CPA qualification and she had been asking questions she wanted to learn. She advised she was told not to ask questions and within a week a confidentiality agreement was sent to her by the HR Department. She signed the agreement and felt she had done something wrong.

The Complainant submitted that several times during her employment with the company she would have avoided direct contact with the Director because she was not aware if he was sober or drunk. She advised this made her feel extremely uncomfortable. She further maintained that the Financial Manager would have stepped in on her behalf to get cheques signed when the Director was drunk as he would be liable to say or do anything, including making inappropriate suggestive facial expressions towards the Complainant at a meeting. She alleged that when she had raised her concerns, she had been told by management that every family has an alcoholic, inferring in effect she had to tolerate this.

The Complainant also advised that during 2017 her husband had been sick, and he had taken some time off work. She advised that the Operations Manager had been fully flexible regarding this matter and appeared to be completely understanding. However, at the end of the year when she had to finish early due to family issue the Operations Manager emailed her to say it was fine but in 2018 she needed to use her holidays and to reduce requests for unpaid leave. The Complainant advised she was shocked by this email as it was a change of attitude towards her. The Complainant submitted that this was an example of the dismissive and bullying behaviour of management within the company as the email from the Operations Manager was completely unwarranted.

The Complainant outlined that during her time she would have experienced adverse working conditions, bullying, discrimination, and harassment by the conduct of her fellow employees. The Complainant advised that all of this made her time with the Respondent extremely frustrating, upsetting, and where management were extremely dismissive of her complaints. She maintained that this was due to the fact that her work colleagues have personal relations with management and consequently professional conduct is ignored. She advised that although she approached management a number of times over these issues they did not improve the situation and where management interventions actually made things worse. She maintained that she was shouted at and referred to as a “townie”.

The Complainant advised that she continued to do her work from September to December 2017, but nothing changed. She advised she never raised her concerns again as management knew about her issues and had said things would change. The Complainant advised over the Christmas she thought a lot about the issue but had concerns that matters were not improving. She advised that she spoke to the Operations Manager so many times about the concerns but after September 2017 nothing had improved. Therefore she saw no point in speaking to the Operations Manager again. She maintained her complaints were pushed under the carpet.

In describing how flexible she was the Complainant outlined that she had gone beyond her duties within her employment contract which included answering receptionist calls from her desk, managing accounts to trial and balance, looking after all administration for the business, and conducting stock takes. With regards to the carrying out of stock checks, the Complainant advised that she had asked for a pair of safety boots but was told by HR that the company does not supply them and when she mentioned this to the Operations Manager she was told she did not need safety boots, and was advised to make sure nothing happened to her.

The Complainant also had concerns with regards to the preparation and analysis of statements were she had to use an ERP system. She advised there was a large amount of errors occurring on the system but she only received minimum training and assistance. She also maintained that the buyers who were using the system did not know how to use it correctly. When she raised this with the Operations Manager the Complainant was told to prepare training notes for the buyers which he did, but this did not help matters. She advised that due to the ongoing issues and her relationship with fellow employees it was very hard for her to resolve the errors being made so she ended up correcting the work herself. As a consequence of these errors the work on the profit and loss reports was taking up more time, but the Complainant still had all of her other duties to complete.

The Complainant submitted that during December 2017 he bank reconciliations were taken away from her at that point she felt there was no option but to leave. The Complainant submitted that when she returned after the Christmas break she had hoped the New Year would bring a new start but that everything was exactly the same. She also submitted that she was given no role in the end of year accounts, and on 26th January 2018 she handed in her notice saying she would be leaving on 2nd February 2018.

She made this decision on the basis that having raised complaints a number of times her concerns were not addressed. She submitted that she had been bullied without management dealing with the matter. The Complainant maintained as result of the company not dealing with her concerns she had no option but to resign her position. She explained it was a difficult decision for her as she had a family and responsibilities.

The Complainant advised that when she handed in a notice she was met by the Operations Manager in the hallway and where the Operations Manager asked her where her new job was. The Complainant advised she did not have a new job but she felt terrible about having to leave without a job so she had told the Financial Manager that she got a job.

When she arrived at work the day after handing in her notice she was told that a family member of the Directors of the company would be taking her job. She advised at this point she had taken enough and sent an email to HR explaining she was sick and told HR she was going home. The Complainant did not return to work after that day. She submitted that the company advertised her position on 1st February 2018. She maintained that she had been treated very badly by the Respondent and had no option but to resign due to the failure of management to deal with her complaints.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed or that the Complainant had no option but to leave her employment as a consequence of the alleged failure by management to deal with her concerns.

The Respondent is a large grower, packer, and distributor of fresh produce to the retail market in Ireland. It grows, purchases and import fruits and vegetables and employs 240 people of which approximately 60 are employed in the offices.

The Respondent outlined that the Complainant was initially employed for maternity cover on 7th March 2016. She resigned from the company on 29th April 2016 and within a week of leaving the Complainant contacted the Operations Manager stating she was unhappy with her new employment and sought to return to the Respondent. She was re-employed on a new contract from 10th May 2016. The Complainant subsequently became a permanent employee in the accounts department.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant submitted a letter of resignation to the Financial Manager on the 26th January 2018 with effect from the 2nd February 2018. The Financial Manager advised the Complainant he would hold off on submitting her resignation until the following Monday, and on the following Monday queried as to whether she had a job lined up. The Complainant indicated that she had a similar role in a similar industry to replace an employee who was retiring. The Operations Manager then met with the Complainant and asked whether the Complainant had definitely made a decision to leave and where the Complainant indicated that she was moving to a new job. The Respondent advised it was disappointed to see the resignation and understood the Complainant had found alternative employment.

The Respondent advised the letter of resignation did not indicate dissatisfaction of any concern in relation to the Complainant’s employment. It also advised the Complainant did not make any complaint or indicate her dissatisfaction to either the Financial Manager, her immediate supervisor, are to the Operations Manager. They also advised that the HR Manager did not receive any complaint in relation to the dissatisfaction of the Complainant. It advised that the company’s employment manual has a clear grievance procedure and that no complaints were any time made by the Complainant under the grievance procedures. The Respondent also advised that the Complainant did not work out her notice, but she stayed at home sick and indicated by email and text she was suffering from flu and was unable to attend work.

The Respondent also advised that the Complainant had previously given one month’s notice to terminate her employment on 19th September 2017. At that time, she set out that due to ongoing issues she was facing in performing her duties that she felt she had no alternative but to leave. In this letter the Complainant had referred to resistance within the firm to new measures and procedures and a lack of support from colleagues in dealing with same. The Respondent maintained the overall focus of the letter related to structural difficulties in the Complainant carrying out and implementing her role in the company. The Respondent also acknowledged the letter included references to staff referring to the Complainant as being “moody” and a “towny”.

The Respondent advised that the resignation letter was furnished to the HR manager and circulated to all managers and that the complaints were dealt with promptly.   The Complainant indicated her satisfaction that the matter had been dealt with appropriately. As a consequence, the Complainant withdrew her resignation indicating she was satisfied that all relevant matters had been dealt with. The Respondent advised it received an email from the Complainant on 28th September 2017 advising that she had spoken to the Director and the General Manager, and after having a discussion with them she had decided to withdraw her resignation. She advised her concerns had been met with a positive and responsible manner which she appreciated and stated she felt she will be able to perform the duties with the support management.

The Respondent submitted that between September 2017 and January 2018 the Complainant made no further formal complaints, nor did she indicate to the managers she met in September 2017, to the Operations Manager, or to the HR manager that there was any ongoing difficulties. The Respondent was therefore of the view that the matters had been dealt with in September 2017 to the satisfaction of the Complainant.

The Respondent denied that the company was seeking to remove the Complainant and advised the Complainant had a three-year wage increment agreement in place which included assistance with her exam fees. The company had also booked a training course for the Complainant which was to take place at the end of February 2018. In that regard the Respondent submitted it had long-term employment expectations for the Complainant.

The Respondent advised that when the Complainant was initially employed on maternity cover they were satisfied with her work and after a number of months she was offered a permanent position where a role was expanded to take over certain areas formally carried out by the Office Manager. The role was also to bring in a new finance management system. As this role carried extra responsibility the Complainant was put on a definitive career path and the role did not diminish the position of any other employee, particularly that of the Office Manager as alleged by the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that there was no evidence of any dissatisfaction from other employees as a result of these changes. The Respondent advised that no complaint was made by the Complainant in relation to any perceived difficulty regarding workplace relationships at that time.

The Respondent advised that the Complainant was requested to move to an office upstairs to a quieter environment and where she would be working alongside and in the same area as the Financial Manager. It denied there was any basis to suggest that this change was due to difficulties with staff. It also contended that there is no basis that this move would have caused a deterioration of relations within the firm.

The Respondent advised that the terms of employment for the Complainant did require her to provide reception cover which included answering phones at the reception desk in the morning, and covering annual leave as needed and when requested. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant appeared to have had difficulties in filling this role but it was clearly set out in her terms of employment.

The Respondent was advised that there are two entrances to the premises. A side door brings staff immediately to the clock-in area and staff who click-in would enter the side door compared to some senior staff who do not clock-in. Therefore, the Respondent indicated that staff would not have been ignoring the Complainant when she was on reception as alleged.

The Respondent advised it has procedures for dealing with complaints and at no time were these procedures initiated by the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted that a number of employees in the office are from towns, and a number are from more rural backgrounds. It confirmed that references would be made from time to time in relation to town or rural backgrounds and all of which are part and parcel of a normal office. The Respondent therefore did not accept there was any singling out of an individual employee in relation to their background. The Respondent further maintained at no time was it made aware of any stress caused or occasioned to the Complainant or other employees due to exclusion within the ordinary social structure of the office.

The Respondent advised that the Complainant would readily have been asked where she was going for lunch but generally she had no interest in having lunch with other employees. It also advised that when the Complainant got married her work section organised an office hen party for her and she attended same. The Complainant was also included in all invites for social lunches and other events but in general she would distance herself from co-workers and made no attempt to integrate.

With regards to a confidentiality agreement, the Respondent advised that all staff were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement and that there was no wheedling out or focusing of the Complainant in this regard as alleged.

The Complainant did not accept the allegations regards to the Director’s behaviour and refuted same. It submitted that these comments constituted an unwarranted attack on the Director’s reputation.

In response to the allegation that the Operations Manager spoke to the Complainant regarding the use of her annual leave, the Respondent advised an issue arose at the end of 2017 in relation to absences of the Complainant being authorised as unpaid leave. It stated that it had a concern with regard to an excessive number of requests and approvals for authorised unpaid leave that had been taken by the Complainant. It therefore had sought for the Complainant to improve this for 2018. The Respondent was of the view that asking the Complainant about applying for unpaid leave was an underlying factor with the Complainant’s dissatisfaction.   The Respondent submitted emails where the Complainant had been seeking flexibility and time off on three separate occasions in August, November and December 2017, and where on 20th December 2017 the Respondent had asked the Complainant to work on reducing the number of authorised unpaid time from 2018 if possible.

The Respondent submitted the first time since September 2017 it became aware that the Complainant was raising concerns with regard to her work was in an email it received from the Complainant on 1st February 2018. This was after she had handed in her notice on the basis she had found alternative and similar employment. In this email the Complainant stated that based on her previous experience she did not wish to communicate directly with management or the Directors. The Respondent therefore contended that the Complainant did not afford them any opportunity to consider and resolve what issues she was now referring to. In effect the Complainant had decided to resign without informing the Respondent she had ongoing concerns since September 2017. The Respondent therefore refuted that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to any unreasonable conduct of the Respondent. The Respondent had understood the Complainant’s concerns had been dealt with in September 2017 and from that point the Complainant had never brought any further concerns to its attention

Referring to legal argument and jurisprudence, the Respondent advised that the burden of proof lies with an employee who claims to have been constructively dismissed and where the employee must prove that the dismissal in fact occurred, and that it was unfair. The Respondent referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Berber V Dunne Stores 2009 where the Court stated 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 further argued that an employee bringing a constructive dismissal claim must give evidence that the employee has invoked the employer’s grievances procedures in an effort to resolve the grievance before initiating a claim for unfair dismissal (Conway V Ulster Bank Ltd UD 474/1981).

The Respondent submitted in the present instance it has an Employee Handbook which has been made available to the Complainant and where it sets out its grievance procedures as follows… [the Company] is committed to promoting and maintaining good employee relations and fostering the commitment and morale of all staff. The purpose of the grievance procedure is to enable employees to raise any complaints concerning work related matters so that the issue may be addressed promptly. It establishes a process for employees to express and reserve concerns or grievances in relation to their employment in a fair and equitable manner. The grievance procedure is a four-stage process. In this regard the Respondent advised that at stage I a complaint is made to the manager; at stage 2teh complaint is made to a senior manage; and at stage 3 the complaint is made to the Human Resources Department. The Respondent contended that that the Complainant did not avail of the grievance procedure and has acknowledged that she did not raise an informal or formal complaint to any persons identified in the procedures from September 2017 until she advised the Respondent of her concerns on 1st February and after she had resigned.

Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant would have been aware of that process in light of her resignation on the 19 September 2017 and a subsequent withdrawal of her resignation at that time when a Director and General Manager of the company had dealt her concerns. At that time the Complainant confirmed in correspondence that the response was a positive and responsible manner which she appreciated, and were she felt after meeting with management that she would be able to perform the duties with the support management. The Respondent therefore argued that the matters complained of in September 2017, which were principally related to work procedures, were dealt with properly and appropriately to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It again submitted that the letter of resignation of 26th January 2018 gave no indication of any complaint, grievance or dissatisfaction, and where the Complainant in fact indicated that she was leaving for alternative employment at that time. The Respondent therefore advised the first notice of any dissatisfaction was an email it received on the 1st February 2018 and where the Complainant indicated it viewed the matter was closed and she was lodging a formal complaint to the WRC. The Respondent therefore submitted it was clear that the Complainant had not involved any grievance procedure and had not contacted the HR Department to seek to have her concerns resolved.

With reference to Flynn v TUSLA The Child and Family Agency (UDD 1810) the Respondent submitted that the WRC stated the onus lies with the Complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the employer was such as to justify her terminating her employment. In this case it was stated that in normal circumstances a Complainant who seeks to involve the reasonable test in a constructive dismissal in furtherance of such a claim must also act reasonably by providing the employer with an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have. They must demonstrate that they have pursued the grievance through the procedures laid down in the contract of employment before taking the step to resign (Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd). In the case the court held that an employer cannot be expected to address an employees’ grievance in circumstances where the employee failed to notify it of their issues and concluded that the Complainant had not been constructively dismissed for she had failed to address grievances before resigning.

The Respondent therefore maintains in the case within the claimant had tendered a letter resignation on the 19th September 2017 and although the Complainant did not engage in the formal grievance procedure at that time, management did meet with her and she subsequently advised she was satisfied the matter had been dealt with and she withdrew her resignation. The Respondent submits that whilst the Complainant’s has submitted that the matters were not adequately dealt with in her current complaint, the fact that she had failed to avail of the formal grievance procedures or failed to notify HR of any dissatisfaction must be considered. Furthermore, it has argued that in her letter of 26th January 2018 the Complainant gave no indication of any grievance and when questioned she maintained she found alternative employment and gave the impression that was the reason for her leaving. The Respondent therefore argued that the Complainant’s submission to the WRC that after using all internal options available to me, through no fault of my own I can’t continue working there, is not credible as the Respondent was not furnished with the opportunity to investigate or deal with any complaint. Rather it asserted it was deliberately misled by the Complainant to believing the basis of her resignation was that she had found alternative suitable employment.

The Respondent therefore submitted that the Complainant has failed to establish that she has been dismissed pursuant to requirements of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977, and has further failed to establish that a dismissal had occurred, which is denied, and where such a dismissal was unfair.

Findings and Conclusions:

In accordance with Section 6(1) the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 “the dismissal of an employee should be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless having regard to all circumstances, the were substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”.

The breach of a contract of employment is a very serious matter and which in cases of unfair dismissal, requires an examination of whether an employer acted fairly. This test is a demanding one involving a mix of both procedural and substantive issues. The onus falls on the employer in such cases to justify any termination. In cases where an employee breaks the contract and then seeks to pursue the employer for constructive unfair dismissal, as in this case, the bar is set just as high. Likewise, the burden of proof, which now passes to the employee, is set at a high level.

In the case within, the Complainant maintained that she had brought complaints about the behaviour of management and her colleagues to management during 2017, and in September 2017 in a letter of resignation. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not address her concerns. This led her to losing all trust in her employer, and before the Christmas leave period she was asked not to be requesting for authorised unpaid leave. Then when she returned from her Christmas leave in January 2018 she believed nothing had changed and she was not given a role in working on the end of year accounts. As a consequence, she handed in her notice on 26th January 2018 and advised the Respondent that she had found a new job. After giving her notice she did not return to work advising she was sick. However, she had not found a new job, she says that she referred to a solicitor, and on 1st February 2018 informed the Respondent about her complaints and that she would be making a complaint to the WRC in seven days.

Having considered the evidence I am satisfied the Complainant did raise concerns to the Respondent in a letter on 19th September 2017, and where she subsequently acknowledged by email on 26th September 2017 that she had withdrawn her resignation, that her concerns had been met in a positive and responsive manner which she appreciated, and where she confirmed she could perform her duties with the support of management. In her own evidence she acknowledged that she did not raise any further concerns until she issued her letter of resignation on 26th January 2018, and even then she advised he had found alternative employment. It was only after she had decided to leave that she informed the Respondent that her concerns had not been resolved that she would be raising her complaints with the WRC. I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant never raised a formal complaint through the organisation’s procedures, and never raised her concerns with management until after she had left.

In considering the employers actions or omissions in such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, the criterion regarding the behaviour of the employer is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the Complainant’s resignation, and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment. In this regard, and as referred to by the Respondent, in Berber v Dunne’s Stores [2009] E.L.R. ‘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.’

In effect the question is whether it was reasonable for the employee to terminate her contract on the basis of the employer’s behaviour. In this case the Complainant did raise concerns in September 2017. and having discussed these with management she advised that her concerns were resolved. She never again raised any formal concerns before deciding to resign. Therefore, she did not provide the Respondent with any opportunity to attempt to address her further concerns before resigning in January 2018. Whilst it may have been that the Complainant was experiencing the series of events that she has alleged, she is nonetheless obliged to behave reasonably in seeking to address any complaint locally with the employer in the first instance. It is only after attempting to address the issue locally should an employee then consider progressing a complaint to the WRC, and then usually in circumstances where the employer has behaved unreasonably and without proper cause. In the case within the Complainant did not provide the Respondent with an opportunity to consider her concerns since September 2017, and nor did she discuss them informally as she decided she would not be listened to, despite in September 2017 advising her employer that her concerns at that time had been dealt with in a positive a responsive manner.

I therefore do not find that the Respondent behaved unreasonably. The Respondent was not informed of any concerns since the matters were dealt with in September 2017, and in particular when the Complainant was asked to consider her resignation she advised she had found alternative and similar employment. Under these circumstances I do not find the Respondent has behaved unfairly. I find the Complainant resigned her position without first seeking whatever concerns she had at that stage to be dealt within the grievance procedures available to her. With reference to Conway v Ulster bank Limited, where grievance procedures exist, they should be followed.

I find that the complaint in the case within did not follow the internal grievance procedures. This precedence is well established where it is clear in workplace grievances of the nature alleged by the Complainant that there is a requirement for a Complainant to demonstrate that they have been reasonable in their attempts to resolve their complaints through the internal Grievance procedures in the first instance.

For the aforementioned reasons I do not find that the Respondent was in breach of its obligations under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.

In order to prove constructive dismissal, the claimant must clearly show that there was no other alternative option open to her other than leave her employment. It must be demonstrated that all reasonable alternatives have been considered. In this case the Complainant has not demonstrated that she made a reasonable attempt to exhaust the internal procedures.

Therefore, the case of unfair dismissal is not upheld.

Dated:  

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Key Words: