ADJ-00019864

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Stores Person

A Car Parts Company

Representatives

EmilySexton,Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors

Shane Glynn,Mason Hayes & Curran

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-00026345-001

18/02/2019

This is a claim for Constructive Dismissal following a three-year period of employment, which incorporated a take-over in the year 2017.

The Claim is opposed by the Respondent, a Car Parts Company.

Both parties were legally represented, the complainant by Emily Sexton at Comyn Kelleher Tobin and Shane Glynn at Mason Hayes and Curran. Both parties made helpful written submissions and were accompanied by witnesses at hearing.

On 18 February 2018, the Complainant lodged a complaint of constructive dismissal timed at 7 September 2018 with the WRC.

The Complainants Solicitor outlined that he had commenced work on counter sales in May ,2015. the Company was taken over by the Respondent in early 2017.

The Complainant submitted that he had been treated in an appalling manner by the Depot Manager, Ms A, from the very beginning of his employment. He believed that he had been targeted, bullied and unfairly treated by her. He experienced an inconsistency in how he was treated and was undermined on a repeated basis.

Following the 2017 take-over, the complainant’s role was streamlined to being fully responsible for “goods in, credit and warranty processing “Mr A criticised his rate of completion and obstructed his progress in carrying out his tasks, for which he had received some training.

On 8 October 2017, the complainant reported Ms A for bullying behaviour by email correspondence. He re-affirmed this account in February 2018. On 6 September 2018, he submitted another email, which confirmed that matters, in his opinion had been swept under the carpet.

During this time, he had raised the matter verbally on several occasions and engaged in several 1:1 meeting with the Management Team. Nothing was done to address his complaints.

The final straw followed a direct conflict situation with Ms A in August ,2018. A meeting followed the next day with Mr B, who met separately with Ms A. He did not receive any feedback apart from hearing Mr B say that “You and Ms A need to find a way to get along “

The Complainant, by that stage was highly stressed because of these events in the workplace. He believed that he had no option in the face of nothing being done to address the bullying but to resign. He believed that he was not the sole target for Ms A as others had left the business because of Ms A.

The Complainant left his work on 7 September 2018 and has claimed constructive dismissal as he believed he had no other option. He contends that his resignation was reasonable in all the circumstances.

He obtained new work on 10 September,2018 which carried a nett differential per month of €119.12. The Complainant sought compensation for actual and prospective loss. He had missed out on a pay increase given to others on the Respondent staff which now projects a nett differential of €288.09 monthly loss.

Evidence of the Complainant:

The Complainant outlined that he had been self employed prior to commencing with the Motor Factors company in May 2015. Mr C, the current Managing Director, was based at an office on the premises and was on the road a lot. Mr B was the Area manager and Ms A was the local Manager. He had a run in with Ms A regarding bulbs within the first two days of employment and there was a bad atmosphere there from the “get go” She treated everyone badly, but he maintained that he was treated the worst amongst the teams of 8-9 lads.

The main thing was that Ms A would intervene just as he was going to finish something and tell him to leave it, she would do it herself. She was the sole woman at the workplace. Altercations and Blow Outs occurred in front of customers and staff and Mr B confirmed to having had runs ins with her prior to him raising the matter in October 2017. He reflected that he couldn’t believe that he stayed there for the duration he did.

The take over meant a new system of work and training. For a time, he lost his “Sign Ons “function and was down to Goods In only. He got the sign in function restored but was not allowed to credit €2.

He introduced the email he sent to the Company at 20.50 hrs on Sunday, October 8, 2017. He explained that he was the last in and understood that the negative behaviour was focussed on him. He felt embarrassed and bullied by a woman.

He reported Ms A for bullying. He summarised the measures he had taken to address the situation directly with her. The Complainant also raised issues of work practices, breaks, health and safety and stock checks which he felt needed to be addressed.

The email concluded with

“……. I am sending you this email to have it on the record and I would be hoping you deal with this asap with the upmost importance as I feel I can no longer function in work with her, especially in the new systems kicking in this week. ……

He went on to say that he could not walk away from the job due to domestic reasons.

“……My Mental health is suffering because of her and something needs to be done and I feel this is the first step for me before HR gets involved “

The Complainant recounted meeting with Ms A, Mr B, Mr C and asked to be allowed do his job. He thought he had been heard and agreed to Mr Cs suggestion to keep the matter amongst themselves. He declined the opportunity to formalise a grievance.

The Complainant sent another email to Mr C on Thursday, February 1, 2018 which indicated that nothing had changed, and he was still been treated badly by Ms A.

He met with Mr C outside the Depot over the course a 10-12-minute discussion. He discussed several issues and denied telling Mr C that he was satisfied at work. He raised the topics of money and stock. He refuted that Ms A had raised any issues with him regarding his performance at work and submitted that he was not on any performance improvement plan. His signs on were back by February 2018.

The Complainant submitted that nobody from the company checked in with him regarding the key working relationship between he and Ms A. He conceded that Mr B may have mentioned it once. He had wanted to relocate to another depot.

He continued to have altercations with Ms A. He recounted receiving a what’s app on his holidays in July 2018, where she had commented negatively at stock left on the floor which she attributed to the complainant. On his return, she told him that she was taking over “Goods In “.

In recalling the August altercation, the complainant recalled that he was putting away stock when he was interrupted to say that Ms A needed someone to move bins. He believed that he was not being allowed to do his job. They shouted at each other.

The next day, he met with Mr B for an hour and “everything came out “from Health a Safety, to Fork Lifts to getting stuff out for the vans on the road. He did not agree to apologise to Ms A and recalled that Mr B said to him “Can you not just get along? “He waited for follow up by Mr B, whom he maintained just drove away, without coming back into the premises. He followed him up later in the day, only to hear that “it is obvious that ye don’t get along “He made the decision to start looking for new work at that point.

He outlined that his options at that point within the business were bleak. He was not permitted a transfer, or a move to van sales and life at the depot with Ms A was unbearable and wasn’t working. Nobody appeared to facilitate a resolution on foot of his two emails, October 2017 and February 2018.

The Complainant confirmed that he had not placed the complainant on notice of the deterioration in his health. He had not participated in any performance reviews or any real probation. He had not received a job description. He had not retained notes of any of the meetings he attended.

The Complainant gave evidence of loss and mitigation.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that the delay in his leaving the job with the respondent was in trying to find a replacement position. He confirmed that he had the job before giving notice.

He refuted that that he had not been compelled to leave his employment. He submitted that he had to beg for new work. He stated that he felt that he had been abandoned when he tried to sort things out within the work place .He confirmed that Pay had formed a part of the February discussions with Mr C .He re-affirmed that Mr C gave him a commitment that he would “ sort it out “ which he understood referred to Ms A and this dissuaded him from raising the matter on  a more formal footing . He understood that the matter was being addressed at some level of the informal footing.

The Complainant confirmed that his job had been demanding. He recounted two reasons for not making formal contact with Human Resources. He was embarrassed to be badly treated by a woman and he thought by actioning a complaint that Ms A would lose her job. He confirmed that he had not followed up with the personnel from the outside Agency who had assisted with the transfer of business. He re-affirmed that Mr B had checked in with a few times, but more on the topic of work rather than the interpersonal conflict with Ms A. He concluded that he went to a superior for help but was let down. He denied that he had been invited by Mr B to make a grievance if he was not satisfied

He confirmed that he had a leaving Do, but not an exit interview. He had surrendered his lap top and mobile phone as he left.

Complainant witnesses:

Mr X, Counter Sales

Mr X confirmed that he had worked for 3 years at counter sales. He explained that he had experienced significant difficulties in working with Ms A. he was constantly being held back. He confirmed that it was acknowledged within the team that the complainant had courage to address the difficulties. He stood up for himself, whereas the remainder were “institutionalised “in putting up with the difficulties.

 He confirmed that in or around April 2017, Ms A had spoken to him about the complainant and placed him in a negative light.

Mr X confirmed that he had spoken to Mr B about his concerns around Ms A. He confirmed that he had heard the conversation, where Ms A had referred to new employees as potential thieves.

During cross examination, Mr X confirmed that the Respondent branch was the best performing branch. He had not been asked by the complainant to intervene. He was not involved in any meetings.

Mr Y, Ex-Employee

Mr Y had left employment in September 2018. He had served 3.5 years on counter sales He recalled Ms A raising her voice with the complainant. Most of the time, he kept his cool.

He said that he had been a witness at an argument between Ms A and the complainant in August 2018 and submitted that Ms A had instigated this argument. He was not involved in any of the meetings referred to by the complainant in his evidence.

Mr Z, Counter Sales

Mr Z stated that he had worked for 3 years with the company, 6 months of which were in the Office with Ms A. The complainant was at the counter behind him. Ms A told him that the complainants problems stemmed from home. Mr Z was puzzled by this as he didn’t appear to have any issues and presented as “happy go lucky “Mr Z did not want to intervene.

He was on lunch during the “massive blow out “and he understood that it was a two-way thing. The Complainant told him that he couldn’t take it anymore. Mr Z was not involved in any meetings but knew that if he had an issue he would raise it with either Mr B or Mr C.

 The Complainants Solicitor accepted that the burden proof fell on her client to prove his case. She outlined the contract and reasonableness test citing respective case law in Daniel O Gorman V Glen Tyre Company Ltd at EAT UD 2314/2010 and Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd V Sharp [1978] IRL 332. She submitted that she was relying on an additional test for reasonableness where an employer has conducted his or her affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer and, if so, he or she is justified in leaving.

In Referring to Ruffley V Board of Management of St Anne’s School [2017] IESC 33, she stressed that the complainant had experienced repeated negative behaviours from Ms A and had been dissuaded from raising the matter formally. The Respondent was fully on notice of the complainant’s story and did not resolve the matter fairly and reasonably. In relying on Liz Allen V Independent Newspapers [2002] 13 ELR 84, the EAT accepted that a complaint could be processed straight to management.

The Complainant submitted that trust and confidence had eroded. In relying on Berber V Dunnes Stores ltd [2009] IESC 10 and the “reciprocal duties on employer and employee “she stressed that the respondent in this case had failed to take seriously the impact of Ms as behaviour on the complainant which seriously damaged the trust and confidence between the parties.

In conclusion, the Complainants Solicitor emphasised the application of Berber to the facts of the case. The Complainant had endured an unbearable work experience and whilst he had asked for help from his Managers the matter stood unchanged. Mr B had not engaged with the Complainant in August and records of meetings were not maintained. The work climate was observed as unsafe by many of the employees, many of whom just left. The complainant had been justified in leaving.

The Respondent took over the Car Parts Business and the Complainants employment as Counter Assistant in April 2017.His role was predominately focussed on taking in stock, conducting stock takes, dealing with returns of stock and maintenance of the store area.

In refuting the claim for constructive dismissal, the Respondent set out the terms of the Grievance Procedure incorporated in the signed contract of employment:

“… If you have any grievance which you consider to be genuine in respect of any aspect of your employment, you have a right to a hearing by your immediate superior or other management as circumstances warrant. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the heating, you may appeal to a Director ….”

The Complainant went on to acknowledge receipt of a Staff Handbook.

In the aftermath of the take -over, the Respondent communicated a staff handbook to all employees inclusive of the grievance procedure, available in hard copy and on the intranet. There was also provision for an Anti-Harassment and Bullying Policy.

The Respondent accepted that the complainant had raised concerns about Ms A on 8 October 2018.Ms A was responsible for instructing the complainant in his role and was responsible for all health a safety aspect of the business.

The Respondent acknowledged that Ms A, Mr B, C and the complainant met during October 2017 to discuss the issues in their working relationship and deal with the issues amicably and informally. At this meeting, both the complainant and Ms A were given contact details for HR to raise a formal grievance if they wished. Both declined. Both parties agreed that they would work on their working relationship and treat each other with respect .MR C understood that the complainant was satisfied with the outcome of this meeting.

On February 1, 2018, the complainant raised a further concern on Ms A and his pay. On 7 February 2018, Mr C spoke with the Complainant about his concerns and highlighted the differences in views between Ms A and he. He was advised to raise a formal grievance for a full investigation to be conducted by an independent senior manager. The Complainant declined.

Mr C told the complainant that the company was loss making and a pay rise would not be viable at the time and those who earned more than him had higher levels of seniority.

Ms A and the complainant had an altercation at work on August 14, 2018. Mr B and the Complainant met off side the next day, where the complainant confirmed that he had been verbally abusive and had shouted at Ms A and accepted responsibility for the incident. He agreed to apologise to Ms A. Mr B provided HR details and the complainant refused to raise a grievance. Mr B also met separately with Ms A who was willing to accept the apology and move on. She was also informed that she could raise a grievance.

The Complainant did not follow through with his steed plan to apologise to Ms A and followed on by submitting his resignation orally on 29 August 2018 and in written form dated 4 September 2018.

The Complainant intimated that he wished to make a complaint against a co-worker but did not do so.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant could not succeed in his claim as the claim was misconceived he had not utilised the company procedures in raising a grievance. The Respondent contended that the complainant was overly hasty in deciding to resign, without activating the grievance procedure or utilising the contact details provided for the Human Resource Team. He was not compelled to leave his work. He had not proved mitigation.

The Respondent relied on the jurisprudence in

Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd V Sharp [1978] 2 WLR, 344 where Lord Denning outlined the reasonableness test as whether the Employer had:

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.

He went on to rely on the Labour Court Case of CACI Non-Life ltd V Daniel Paone and Harold v St Michaels House UD 1123/2004 on the centrality of the utilisation of the grievance procedure. Conway V Ulster Bank UD 1981 474 at EAT was also relied on.

Evidence of the Respondent: Mr C, Sales Director

Mr C outlined that significant change had followed the “Buy Out “in April 2017. There were now over 11,500 employees across Ireland and the UK. His own base had altered as he became Divisional Sales Director.

In recalling the October email from the complainant, he recalled that he felt uncomfortable. He organised a meeting and heard from the Complainant that Ms A micro managed, was over bearing and undermined him at work. He heard from Ms A that the Complainant was not completing his tasks on time an she was not happy with him. He tried to put some balance into the issue and suggested after 45 minutes that all parties take a step back and have mutual respect, both parties agreed. The approach going forward was for the complainant to be less combative and Ms A to micro manage less.

The follow up plan was that if either party remained unhappy they should contact a named contact at the Human Resource Dept.

In addressing the February 2018 from the Complainant, Mr C recalled that he had rejected a request from the complainant for a pay increase as there was no budget for it and the company was still losing money.

The Complainant raised issued over Ms A again. He approached Ms A and received feedback which pointed to the complainant not doing what he was told. He instructed her to put the complainant on a performance improvement plan if necessary. Neither party wanted to formalise a complaint at that juncture.

Mr C reflected that he did not have the availability of time he previously had at the base but denied that he had dissuaded the complainant against formalising his complaint. He acknowledged that the complainant had chosen the informal route. Mr C would have preferred if he had contacted Human Resources. He confirmed that Performance Appraisals were at the disposal of the company but were not used.

During cross examination , Mr C confirmed that he had not retained notes of the engagements with the complainant .He understood that measures ha been put in place to maintain the complainants safety , but could not point to a risk assessment or an enabling tool for Ms A to manage the complainant .He had made an honest attempt at resolving situation in the preferred manner sought by the Complainant . He disputed that Mass Leavers had followed as there were only 3 leavers in 2018. Ms A has since relocated to Dublin.

Evidence of Mr B, Area Manager.

Mr B recalled the informal nature of the October Meeting in 2018. Both Ms A and the complainant said their piece and agreed to treat each other with respect. He recalled that both parties were given a named contact at the Human Resource Dept plus the Grievance procedure. He understood that things had improved after this meeting. He acknowledged that he was busy as Area Manager.

The Complainant had been given a pay rise in January 2016.

He recalled receiving a text from the complainant on 14 August 2018. He had had an altercation with Ms A. He arranged to meet him at the branch the next day. The Complainant admitted that it was his fault and he planned on apologising to Ms A for the verbal abuse. Mr B re-affirmed that Human Resources were available to address any grievance. He agreed to follow up with the complainant.

He later learned that he had not apologised. Mr B suggested wording to enable the parties to move on. The Complainant did not want to pursue the issue against Helen. Two weeks later he gave his notice of leaving. Mr B conducted an exit interview of 10 minutes duration on his last day where he recouped his work equipment. He gave his reasons for leaving as money and Ms A.

There were no jobs available at a sister plant at the time of the complainant’s departure. 

During cross examination, Mr B confirmed that HR was not at branch level but was readily accessible for staff. Details of Grievance procedure were available from Ms as office. Mr B re-affirmed that the complainant took responsibility for the August altercation with Ms A. He confirmed that the complainant had asked for a relocation but there were no opportunities available.

In conclusion, The Respondent Solicitor refuted that Mr B ha abandoned the process in August. He had maintained a presence in the office until 17.55 hrs on that evening. He submitted that by not raising his concerns with Human Resources and the absence of a grievance the company’s hands were tied. The Complainant had not proved his case of Constructive Dismissal. He had enough guidance in his contract of employment to address his concerns and he had not established loss as he found work promptly.

I have listened very carefully to both parties in this case. I have considered the written submissions and the case law submitted.

It is important for me to reflect that this was a work place actively engaged in a seismic change agenda during the latter course of the complainant’s employment. I heard from the Management that the workforce had mushroomed to 11, 500 across two jurisdictions and roles had been re-carved for everyone with some training.

It is also important for me to reflect that the complainant clearly brought a high level of autonomy and entrepreneurial import to the employment as he had been self-employed for several years before commencing direct employment. I found that both back drops had their own influence on this cases’ turn of events. I have not had the benefit of meeting Ms A in this case and I make no finding in relation to the claims of bullying and inconsistent treatment against her.

I have been asked to decide whether the complainant was constructively dismissed, and I will commence by outlining a definition of a constructive dismissal as provide for in Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Section 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

I have had regard for both oral and written submissions. I observed at an early stage that the case was distinguished from Conway as the Complainant in this case had made two profound statements of concern in respect of his observations of his working life. Ms Conway made a primary act of resignation in direct response to her notification of transfer.

 It is regrettable that the complainant coupled his second written submission   in February with a reference to a requested pay rise. This ought to have been dealt with separately as it proved a distraction. I appreciate that the complainant had a change in family circumstances in late 2017 which prompted this request. However, it ought not have been conflated with the Staff Relations Issues. I cannot express any view on the validity of whether the complainant was bullied or not. I am looking at this case through the lens of reasonableness.

In this, I am bound to consider the actions of both Employer and Employee in this case, Berber refers. As stated, I am satisfied that the company was engaged in radical change from April 2017 onwards. I am mindful that the complainant enjoyed this challenge and was keen for further responsibility to be vested in him. I have no doubt that he saw himself as part and parcel of the company and had no plans to leave. The Change clearly put additional pressures on the Management Team which became less available to the complainant post the take-over.

I probed this as while the complainant submitted that staff relations with Ms A were poor from the beginning. He still stayed there for over two years before raising a concern in writing in October 2017. I understand that he hesitated due to Ms As seniority, but I would have expected, given his entrepreneurial spirit, that he would have spoken up much sooner. It may have assisted him had he spoke sooner.

I was alarmed at what followed his first disclosure in October 2017. For some unclear reason, his very cogent complaint was met by a round table meeting, inclusive of the alleged protagonist. I could not establish just where this approach was advised and I was further dissatisfied that no notes of this meeting were availed from either party .I found it difficult to conceive how that particular assembly could anchor an effective early conflict resolution .I appreciate that the Management Team were well intentioned and acted without any malintent , however , the four way interaction  was overly ambitious for such a long standing reportage of conflict and showed a marked lack of sensitivity .It also demonstrated a certain level of procedural containment .

 However, the most important omission was a lack of an Agreed Action Plan document as a follow up. Throughout this case, there were lightly veiled references to Ms A taking issue with the complainant’s performance. However, I accept the complainant’s evidence that he was not managed in that vein.

 Furthermore, I accept the Respondents evidence that Ms A was not equipped with any performance management tools in this regard. I was not assisted by the complete lack of documentary records in this case from either party. I found gaps in both party’s recollection of the sequence of events.

The Respondent has rested their defence on the complainant not activating the company grievance procedure incorporated in his contract of employment. They said that their hands were tied by this inertia. I saw things a little differently. The Complainants email of October 8 was a clear cry for help. In terms of the duty of care invested in an employer to provide a safe workplace, this constituted a red alert moment and ought to have been treated as such. In my review of this case, I found an overly casual approach where talking, listening and reflecting took place but little identified action to resolve matters.

 I was not taken by the repeated reference that the complainant was armed with the necessary tools of resolution through Human Resources and did not press that button. I found that the Respondent was on clear notice of an issue 2.5 years into the complainant’s employment, followed by a re-articulation some 4 months, (albeit couched by other issues). In addition, the chain of command in the respondent company placed the alleged protagonist at a much senior level to the complainant and this should have been reflected in an earlier action plan.

 At any rate, Section 7.3 of the Company Bullying Policy dated November 2012 proved illuminating

“As a general principle, the decision whether to progress a complaint is up to you. However, we have a duty to protect all colleagues and may pursue the matter independently, if in all the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to do so.”

This pointed to an executive authority held in reserve by the Respondent which was never used. I have identified that the Respondent apparent lack of engagement in or resolve to consider this overarching authority   as a missed opportunity.

There was another factor in this case which I found unsettling. I will refer to this as the inactivity of the By Stander. By that I mean, from the witness evidence, I learned of a culture of unease with the leadership of Ms A, a woman among 8-9 men, yet I found no culture of “speaking up” to address this. There were no staff communication meetings. Instead there was a culture of “by standing” which was reflected in one witness statement, where he freely acknowledged and admired the complainant’s courage in standing up for himself. He saw it as a “solo voyage “.

This culture of “by standing “proved injurious to the Complainant as reflected in a what’s app he received on his holidays regarding supposed work omissions.

It is clear to me that everybody could have done more to resolve matters much earlier in this case. Sadly, that did not happen. I found the efforts of Mr B and C, while well intentioned, to have been too remote from affecting a resolution. The paucity of records in the case is striking and unhelpful. I did not, however find any evidence of the complainant being actively discouraged from raising his issue within the company.

In considering whether the complainant was within his rights to leave and claim constructive dismissal, I have considered his evidence from that perspective. I have also considered the evidence of his Managers.

The Complainant had run out of options by August 2018. He could not get a requested transfer. He was unable to affect improvements in the staff relations with Ms A and he had not secured a pay rise, a sub plot in the story. He had not placed his employer on notice of his deteriorating mental health outside the first communique in October 2017.

 However, I accept that he experienced a sense of utter hopelessness following his last exchange with Ms A in mid-August which was not remedied in his follow up with Mr B. I have established that the complainant believed that he had tried everything to resolve his workplace issue by a clear statement of need in October 2017, followed by a re-affirmation in February 2018, which was accompanied by a clear request to validate the complainants concerns through talking to the staff through a staff meeting.

 I believe that the complainant did try and work things out. I have found that the Respondent practiced a listening ear which was not matched by a cogent Action plan outside the path of mutual appeasement of the parties at the centre of the conflict, which rendered any potential progress as unlikely. I was struck by the desperation in the last moments of the complainant’s direct evidence as he stated that he had begged for another job as a viable means of exit whilst preserving his capacity to make a living. In this I found that his working life had become unbearable and a major departure from the cogency contained in his first email of October 2017. I found that the complainant had suffered greatly in this employment. He had both the courage to articulate his view of his treatment and his perceived views of the  prevailing culture, before finding the  courage to leave and re-launch.

For me, he has satisfied the very high burden necessary for a Constructive dismissal as provided for in Section 1 of the Act.

In Mc Cormack v Dunnes Stores [2009] 7 JIEC 0701, the EAT held that a Constructive Dismissal claim could not succeed as the complainant had received a concession to her claim for flexible hours within her employment which she failed to consider fully prior to resignation.

 In the instant case, I could not establish that the complainant had anything to hold onto at the point of his departure, outside the apprehension on repeated altercations which were having a devastating effect of him. I have distinguished the case from Mc Cormack.

 I have found that, given the Organisational awareness of the depth of the issues, the Respondent was on clear notice of the complainant’s issues, and not hampered by the lack of activation of the grievance /bullying procedures on this occasion.

I find that he has succeeded in his claim for constructive dismissal.

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.

I have established that the Complainant was entitled to consider himself constructively dismissed on September 7, 2018. I find that compensation is the more apt remedy as the employment relationship is now irredeemable.

Mindful that the complainant found work, albeit at a lower rate, promptly post dismissal, I accept that the correct prospective differential in rate as €119.12 per month. I do not accept the prospective differential submitted by the Complainant.

On that basis I award the Complainant €3,000.  as compensation for actual and prospective loss.

I would also advise both parties to keep a written record of all workplace meetings going forward.

Claim for Constructive Dismissal