Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Multiple Outlet Retailer

Representatives

Not represented

Judy McNamara, IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00038765-001

16/07/2020

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

CA-00038766-001

Withdrawn

16/07/2020

The respondent is an established retailer with multiple outlets in Ireland.  In November 2014, the complainant commenced employment as a sales assistant on a seasonal basis.  He was appointed to a permanent role on August 13th 2017.  He worked as an assistant in the operations department of a store in a Dublin shopping centre, a role involving the intake of stock from delivery trucks and the onward movement of product onto the shop floor.  He worked for 30 hours a week and he earned an hourly rate of €13.73.

On  April 11th 2019, when he was at work in the operations section, the complainant injured his back.  In the 10 months that followed, he hurt his back four more times, and he was absent for more than 30 shifts.  Apart from his back injury, he claims that some of his absences were due to mental strain and work-related stress.  On 15 occasions, having arrived at work, he left before the end of his shift, sometimes because of his sore back, and sometimes because of stress associated with how his injury and return to work was being managed.

During the period from April 2019 to February 2020, the complainant submitted 11 grievances about how he was treated by various managers.  Up to the date of his resignation on February 24th 2020, he appealed the outcome of almost every investigation. 

On November 26th, 2019, the complainant received a written warning for leaving work without permission on October 19th, when he hurt his back due to sitting in what he claimed was a faulty chair.  He appealed against this warning and he submitted a grievance about how he was treated by the manager who conducted the disciplinary investigation

On January 15th 2020, an investigation took place into the complainant’s failure to attend work on January 11th.  The complainant said that a section manager gave him permission to take the day as a holiday, but this was disputed by the manager who claimed that she told the complainant he could work the early shift instead of the late shift.  In the end, no sanction was issued; however, the complainant submitted a grievance about what he said were “lies” told by the section manager and the commercial manager about his absence.

On February 3rd 2020, the complainant attended a disciplinary investigation to discuss the fact that he had been absent for 33 shifts over the previous 26 weeks.  He left the meeting before it concluded and he refused to attend a disciplinary meeting on February 6th.  On February 7th, he was given a verbal warning regarding his absences.  On the same day, the complainant submitted a grievance about how he was treated by the HR manager.

The complainant had been examined by the company’s occupational health consultant (OHC) on January 16th.  She recommended that the complainant remain working in the foods section and not in operations, until he benefited from physiotherapy and exercise and until he no longer needed strong pain-killers.   On February 12th 2020, the complainant was suspended from work when he told the store manager that he intended to bring the OHC’s report onto the shop floor with him so that he could refer to it if he was asked to do any work that he felt unable to do.

Following his suspension, on February 13th, the complainant was requested to attend an investigation meeting.  On February 17th, he said that the went to his doctor and told him that his mental well-being was suffering.  At a meeting on February 24th to investigate his refusal to properly engage with managers and to carry out his job, he handed in his notice of resignation.

It is the complainant’s case that he exhausted every option available to him to bring about a resolution to his grievances, and that, in the end, his mental health was suffering.  He said that he felt that he was forced to decide to no longer work for the company.  The respondent’s position is that the complainant’s resignation does meet the burden of proof to substantiate a claim of constructive dismissal.

The outline of the case that the complainant submitted to the WRC is more than 8,000 words in length and sets out a series of incidents that occurred between April 11th 2019, when he was injured at work, and March 3rd 2020, when the Head of HR confirmed that his resignation of February 24th was accepted.  His submission provides details of over 80 separate events, comprising meetings, incidents and five injuries, that he recorded, leading to his decision to resign.  These include disciplinary investigations regarding his absences and leaving work without permission, 11 grievances concerning how his injuries and absences were managed and appeals of the outcomes of the disciplinary and grievance investigations.  The complainant submitted grievances about the store manager, the commercial manager, the HR manager and others, and more than 15 managers were involved at various stages of disciplinary and grievance investigations and appeals.

At the opening of the hearing on December 2nd 2020, the complainant said that, having resigned on February 24th 2020, he started a new job on March 3rd, earning an annual salary of €25,000, slightly more than what he earned with the respondent.

Evidence of the Complainant

In his evidence, the complainant went through the chronology of events from April 11th 2019, when he hurt his back at work.  He returned to work on May 2nd 2019.  On that day, a colleague put his arms around the complainant and he jolted his back, and he had to go to hospital.  He was absent for a further week.  The complainant described the dispute that arose when he returned to work on May 11th between him and his line manager, and then between him and a commercial manager, concerning the work that he was to be assigned to on his return.  The complainant said that his doctor recommended that he was given light duties and that he was not asked to do any heavy lifting or pulling.  This matter was clarified on May 17th, when the complainant showed the store manager and another commercial manager a letter from his doctor.  He was then assigned to light duties for three weeks, ending on June 2nd 2019.

On June 28th, the complainant was pulling a cage of wine when it toppled over and fell on him.  He went home due to the pain in his back.  When he returned to work on July 3rd, he told an operations manager that he didn’t feel well and he went home.  On July 15th, he went to his doctor and was certified as unfit for work.  On July 21st, he took two weeks’ leave for the birth of his daughter.

The complainant said that he had asked to be seen by the OHC, but when he returned to work on August 8th, an appointment had not been made.  In his evidence, he said that a HR manager told him to go home.  He returned on August 12th and signed a consent form to be seen by the OHC. 

On August 13th, he attended a manual handling training course, and he said that he felt that the instructors were not knowledgeable about the processes in the store where he worked, and he was nervous about doing the lifting exercises with his sore back.

On August 16th, the complainant said that the store manager assigned him to a job in the food hall, where there wasn’t so much heavy lifting and pulling compared to his job in operations.  At the hearing, the complainant said that the job he was given in the food hall was a “manual-intensive role,” and he asked to be trained on a cash register.  He was informed that there was no one available to do the training.  He said that the store manager and another manager were angry with him and they told him to return to his job in the food hall, or leave.  The complainant said that he went home.

On August 19th, the complainant said that he went to his doctor who wrote a note to say he had back pain and recommended that he was given “light duties as much as is feasible.”  He was trained on the operation of the cash register.

On August 23rd, the respondent was notified of the complainant’s decision to initiate legal proceedings regarding his injury at work and he said that “this was the turning point” and, from then on, his time with this employer became unbearable.   He said that his conduct was never investigated before that point, but he was then subject to three disciplinary sanctions.

On September 2nd, the complainant attended work but he left before the start of his shift.  In his evidence, he said that he submitted a grievance in which he “named a lot of the management team” including the HR manager and the store manager.   

The OHC’s report of September 4th stated that the complainant was fit to work in the food hall and that any anxiety should be alleviated with adequate training.  He said that he felt vindicated by this report but that the management “pretended that it didn’t exist.”

A grievance meeting took place on September 11th, taking more than five hours and with the details recorded in nine pages of notes which were submitted in evidence.  In her findings, the investigating manager said that the complainant was “physically and behaviourally aggressive.”  She concluded that he was provocative, that he had a tendency to “flip out,” that he was pedantic and engaged in tirades.  The complainant said that the report included an allegation that he was derogatory towards women.  At the hearing of this complaint on December 2nd 2020, the complainant questioned why he was allowed to continue to remain at work if his behaviour was that bad.  He said that this report was the end of his career in the company.  He said he had been keen to avail of the accelerator programme to become a manager, but that ambition was gone.

From then on, the complainant said that he was fearful going to work, and he felt that there was a threat against him.  He appealed against the findings of the grievance investigation and a meeting took place on December 12th, chaired by a HR manager and a store manager from a different store to the one where the complainant worked.  On December 31st, he received confirmation that the managers hearing his appeal made no changes to the findings in the original report.

On September 26th, the complainant said that he was injured by items being thrown from a lift and he was taken to hospital by ambulance.

When he was at work on October 19th, the complainant hurt his back when he sat in a faulty chair and he went home.  On October 21st, he was requested to attend a meeting to investigate why he went home without permission.  He said that he got one hour’s notice of this meeting and when he went to the canteen, a section manager told him that he had been called to an investigation meeting.  The complainant said that he submitted a grievance about the fact that the section manager had this information and also about the section manager conducting the investigation. 

At the investigation meeting, the complainant said that he told the section manager that he had submitted a grievance about him and that he didn’t want to proceed with the meeting.  He said that later that day, the section manager decided to proceed with the meeting, but the complainant did not participate and the meeting ended.  On October 23rd, the complainant said that he submitted a grievance about this meeting.

On November 4th, the complainant attended a disciplinary hearing, arising from his departure from work on October 19th.  He said that he was given the 2011 version of the absence policy, which he claims was out of date and he said that, although he asked for an updated policy, he wasn’t provided with one.  He received a written warning.  He claims that it was not appropriate for the manager who conducted the investigation to do so, because he had submitted a grievance about how he was treated by that manager. 

On November 14th, the complainant said that he submitted a grievance because his grievances of October 21st and 23rd had not been heard and a meeting was eventually scheduled for November 20th.  The complainant said that he felt intimidated by the presence of the store’s HR manager and the meeting was re-scheduled for November 25th.  The managers concluded that the complainant was not informed in advance of the meeting on October 21st and that the section manager that he met in the canteen had informed the complainant that he was required to attend an investigation meeting.

On November 27th, the complainant submitted a grievance about how the manager who carried out the disciplinary investigation October 21st conducted that meeting.  On November 28th, he appealed against the issuing of the written warning.  He said that the store manager approached him on the shop floor and took the grievance against the manager out of an envelope and asked him to take it back and to have the matter dealt with on appeal.  He said that he refused to withdraw his grievance.

On January 13th 2020, the complainant submitted another grievance, because his grievances of October 21st and 23rd had not been heard.  He said that, on the same date, he “added another grievance” against the store manager.  When, on January 31st, he was informed by the HR manager, that the store manager would be hearing his appeal against the written warning, he said that he was astounded.

On January 16th, the complainant was examined again by the OHC who found that he was unfit to work in the operations department and that he needed time to benefit from physiotherapy and exercise.

On February 6th, the complainant was requested to attend a meeting to discuss his high level of absence.  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he “wasn’t invited correctly” and that the manager didn’t give him notice of what the meeting was about, so he left.  The outcome was a verbal warning.  The complainant submitted a grievance against the manager who issued this warning.

From the complainant’s evidence, it appears that, at a meeting on February 12th, to investigate his grievances, he attempted to have a discussion with the store manager and the commercial manager to get an understanding about the meaning of the OHC’s assessment of January 16th.  He said that he wanted to discuss his options.  He said that he told the store manager that he would keep the OHC’s report in his possession on the shop floor at all times so that he could refer to it if he was asked to do something that he felt he couldn’t do.  He said that the store manager said that he was to remain working in the foods section.  He said that he told her that she should not be hearing this grievance, because he had named her in his grievance of September 2nd.

The complainant said that he was walking by the store manager’s office and he heard her telling the HR Manager who was on the phone on loudspeaker that he was to be suspended if he took the OHC’s report to the shop floor.  He said that he opened the door and reiterated his intention to take the report onto the shop floor.  He was suspended for refusing to follow a reasonable management instruction and for intentionally frustrating the grievance procedure.

In the documents he produced for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of a note from his doctor dated February 17th, which stated, “his mental wellbeing is suffering as a result of suspension from work.” 

A meeting took place on February 24th, to investigate the complainant’s conduct on February 12th, chaired by a manager from a different store to the one where the complainant worked.  At the meeting, the complainant handed in a letter of resignation.  Despite this, on February 27th, he attended a disciplinary meeting, chaired by another store manager from a different store.  The outcome was a written warning.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

In cross-examining on the second day of the hearing on April 1st 2021, the complainant said that investigations and disciplinary hearings started after he submitted a letter to the store manager in July 2019, regarding his personal injuries case.  He said that the store manager told him that the only way things could improve was “if everything went away.”  This was disputed by the store manager who said that she did not open the letter regarding the complainant’s personal injuries claim.  Ms McNamara told the complainant that none of the managers in the store where he worked were aware of his personal injuries claim, and that it was handled by a company in the UK. 

Ms McNamara asked the complainant if it was his case that everything was fine in his job before he submitted a grievance on September 2nd 2019 and the complainant said that his treatment by his employer after he submitted this grievance was clear.

On August 16th 2019, the complainant said that the store manager told him he could move to the shop floor if he “signed away” his union rights.  Ms McNamara asked the complainant why this was an issue when he wasn’t a member of the union.  The complainant responded that he was never a member of SIPTU, “but I allowed her to think that I was.”  He said that SIPTU represents operations employees and Mandate represents shop staff, and that there are issues moving between the two departments.

The complainant agreed with Ms McNamara when she said that he didn’t lose any rights when he moved to the shop floor.

The complainant returned to work on May 11th 2019, following his injury on April 11th.  He said that on May 22nd, he gave the store manager a medical cert in which his doctor recommended that he be given light duties.  In his evidence, the complainant said, “I got it for the date that it was due to take effect.”  It appears from the complainant’s evidence that, while this cert was dated May 11th, it was given to the store manager on May 22nd, and he may not have produced it at his return to work meeting on May 11th. 

The complainant was on light duties for three weeks and was assigned back to the operations section on June 2nd.   On August 14th, he said that he asked if he could do “a reduced role,” meaning, a move out of operations.  He agreed with Ms McNamara that he was permitted to move to a job in the food hall, but when he was there, he asked to work on a cash register.  He said that he wanted to take breaks and sit down.  He said that he was instructed to do all the tasks that he was assigned to until training on the cash register was provided.  The complainant said that he spoke to a colleague who could have trained him on the cash register, but she had to get approval.  He said that he went home that day, feeling unwell.  He went back to his doctor to ask for a recommendation to do “as light duties as possible.”  His doctor’s note dated August 19th 2019 requested the complainant to be “assigned to as light duties as is feasible.”

Responding to a question from Ms McNamara, the complainant agreed that he lodged 11 grievances.  He agreed also that, while these were being dealt with, disciplinary issues were also being managed, but the complainant interjected and said that the respondent “didn’t follow up on my grievances” and that confusion was created by the number of people that were involved in the various issues.

The Complainant’s Case that his Resignation was a Constructive Dismissal

In his concluding remarks, the complainant said that, before he was injured on April 11th 2019, he had only been absent for seven shifts.  He said that all his absences since then were because of work-related injuries. 

Regarding his grievances with his employer, he said that the managers never looked for a speedy resolution, that too much time elapsed between when he submitted his grievances and when they were investigated.  He said that his visit to the OHC was also delayed.

It is the complainant’s case that his employer was in breach of his contract of employment, because of the failure of the management to provide him with an updated handbook.   He said that the managers who were responsible for dealing with his grievances were unsuitable, because of their involvement in previous issues.

In the end, he said that his mental health suffered.  He produced a copy of a letter dated February 17th 2020 from his doctor which states, “his mental wellbeing is suffering as a result of his suspension from work.”  By that stage, the complainant said that he had exhausted the procedures for resolving his grievances and he had no other option but to resign. 

The respondent’s submission at the hearing of this complaint contains a tabulated version of the chronology of the events set out in the complainant’s submission.  In a document running to 10 pages, Ms McNamara detailed each of the meetings that took place under the disciplinary or grievance procedures, the times that the complainant left work due to illness, the five occasions on which he was injured at work and the dates on which he was absent due to illness.  During the 10 months before his resignation, Ms McNamara said that the complainant was absent for 46 days.

Against the backdrop of the complainant’s injuries at work, and the attendance issues that resulted from these injuries, the managers dealt with a series of grievances and appeals.  It is the respondent’s position that, in the 10 months before he resigned, the managers dealt with the complainant’s concerns fairly and reasonably.

Ms McNamara referred to the contractual test and the reasonableness test which generally determine if a complaint of constructive dismissal can be upheld.  She cited the precedents of Conway v Ulster Bank, UD 474/1981 and McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008 respectively to support the employer’s case that its actions meet the standard established by these tests.  She said that the obligation of an employee to exhaust the grievance procedures exists even where there may be a breach of contract, and in this regard, she referred to the case at the former Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) of Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, UD720/2006.

It is the respondent’s case that, like the claimant in Travers, the complainant in the case under consideration here did not utilise all the internal remedies available to him and that this is detrimental to his argument that his resignation amounts to a constructive dismissal.

Concluding the respondent’s case, Ms McNamara said that it is noteworthy that the OHC assessment of January 16th 2020 concluded that the complainant was not fit to work in the operations section, and that he was to be permitted time to benefit from delayed physiotherapy and exercise.  Referring to the multiple accidents in the previous months, the OHC’s report concluded as follows:

“Despite a normal build and satisfactory general fitness, the long-term ‘fit’ between this employee for work either in the Operations Team or in the Food Team will be a matter of discussion between employer and employee.”

The OHC anticipated that the complainant would be fit to return to his job in the operations section by early April 2020.  The respondent’s case is that, on based on this medical opinion,  the complainant’s resignation was “pre-emptive.”

In conclusion, it is the respondent’s position that the complainant’s contract of employment was not repudiated and that its interactions with him were at all times reasonable.  The complainant’s failure to exhaust the internal grievance procedure and his failure to adhere to the recommendations of the OHC, were unreasonable on his part, and on this basis, the respondent’s case is that he was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise.

Questioning of the Respondent’s Managers

At the conclusion of Ms McNamara’s submission on behalf of the respondent, the complainant questioned the HR manager and the store manager. 

The complainant asked the store manager if she remembered calling him “a silly bugger” at a meeting on August 14th 2019.  The store manager said that that term is not part of her vocabulary and that she recalls telling the complainant to “stop playing silly beggars.”  In the documents he submitted to the WRC, the complainant included part of a note of a grievance meeting held on September 11th 2019.  The note records that the store manager “called me pedantic and that I was playing silly beggars.”  

The HR manager agreed that there were no official complaints about the conduct of the complainant.  When he asked the HR manager if she would be willing to permit an aggressive employee to remain at work, she said that “there was no merit in putting more heat into the issue,” but she said that the commercial manager was uncomfortable with the complainant’s behaviour at a meeting on May 15th 2019.

The complainant asked the HR manager where it says that a grievance can take 11 weeks to investigate.  She responded that the situation was very complicated, with a lot of people involved.  She said that she wanted to do a thorough job and to deal with every allegation.  The complainant responded that in February 2020, his disciplinary investigation was going ahead and his grievances were being put on hold.

At a meeting on February 7th, the complainant said that he tried to get clear guidelines.  He asked the HR manager why she didn’t say, “this is what you can do and this is what you can’t do.”  The HR manager said that the complainant was suspended from work on that day because he refused to engage with the managers regarding suitable work.

Concluding questions, the complainant alleged that the person doing the manual handling training for operations employees was not familiar with the store where the complainant worked.  The commercial manager responded that the manual handling trainers are capable of working across all the different stores, despite the variation in layouts, equipment and processes.

Constructive Dismissal

The definition of dismissal at Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 includes the concept of constructive dismissal:

“dismissal, in relation to an employee means -

“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 without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer…”

As a complaint of constructive dismissal, the burden of proof rests with the complainant to show that his decision to leave his job was reasonable in the circumstances that prevailed at the time.

The issue for decision in this case is, taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent in relation to this former employee, was it reasonable for him to resign on February 24th 2020, and to claim that, because of how he was treated by his employer, no other course of action was open to him?

Context in which the Complainant Decided to Resign

I have reviewed the events of April 2019 to February 2020 which the complainant described in his written submission and in his evidence at the hearing.  It is apparent that his difficulties commenced when he returned to work on May 11th 2019, having hurt his back on April 11th and May 2nd.  From then on, the complainant was in conflict with his managers about the work that he could and couldn’t do.  On May 22nd, for three weeks, he was assigned to job in the food hall that involved no heavy lifting or pulling.

The complainant moved back to his operations role in June, but he was often absent.  He was involved in further accidents on June 28th, September 26th and October 19th.  His failure to attend work regularly and his habit of leaving work due to illness, stress or frustration resulted in a strained relationship with his managers.  No organisation is perfect and I’m sure that this employer falls into the less than perfect category some of the time.  However, it seems to me that, on many occasions, when the managers could have taken a different course of action, they were conciliatory in their dealings with the complainant.

As examples, I refer to May 22nd 2019, when the store manager conceded that there was a mix-up in communications between the complainant and the commercial manager regarding a doctor’s note showing that light duties were recommended; however, there was no discussion about the fact that the mix-up was caused by the complainant himself.

On July 3rd 2019, having failed to attend work for 22 shifts, no disciplinary action was taken.

On August 16th, although he had not yet been assessed by the OHC, the store manager assigned the complainant back to a role in the food hall, removing him from the pulling and lifting involved in his job in operations.  On the same day, pushing the limits of patience of the managers, he claimed to be in discomfort and he asked to be put on a cash register.  This is when the “silly beggars” remark was made. 

As a further example of the conciliatory approach of management, in January 2020, no sanction resulted from an investigation into the complainant’s absence on January 11th, when it seems to me that he didn’t turn up for work for the early shift instead of the late shift as he was instructed by a manager.  The investigating manager concluded that there was an “unclear outline of events;” but I am satisfied that a more tenacious manager would have reached a different conclusion, and not in the complainant’s favour.

The notes of the investigation into the complainant’s grievance of September 2nd contain details of interviews with several managers.  It seems to me that each one endeavoured to treat the complainant with tolerance and respect, even when they were confronted with very challenging behaviour.  However, for his part, as one person noted, “he has absolutely no respect for management…”

The Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Cases

An employee who claims that they have been constructively dismissed must satisfy two tests, known as the “contract test” and the “test of reasonableness.”  As a third component to this burden of proof, an employee who decides to resign and who argues that their resignation was because of the conduct of their employer, must demonstrate that they made every effort, by utilising the internal procedures, to have their grievances addressed.

The contract test requires an employee to demonstrate that his or her contract has been repudiated, meaning in effect that the employer has abandoned the provisions of the contract.  By way of precedent, Ms McNamara referred to the seminal case of Conway v Ulster Bank, UD 474/1981.  Finding that Ms Conway had not established that her employer “no longer intended to be bound by the contract,” and that no change occurred to make the contract “so radically different to what was before,” her claim of unfair dismissal was not upheld.

In his submissions, the complainant argued that there was a procedural breach of a condition of his employment when he claimed that the respondent used an out of date policy to investigate his absence.  He also argued that he was not given enough notice of various meetings, and that, in his view, the wrong people were investigating his grievances and managing the investigations into his absences.  I find that, in respect of these minor procedural issues, there was no violation of the complainant’s contract and he has failed to satisfy this test.

The second test requires the employee to demonstrate that his employer’s conduct was so unreasonable that he had no alternative but to resign.  This was considered in the case of McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008, which was also cited by Ms McNamara.  Here, the Employment Appeals Tribunal concluded that:

“The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.” 

It is my view that, in the case of this employee, the conduct of his employer in respect of their dealings with him was accommodating and conciliatory.  In spite of his challenging behaviour, his tendency to be accident-prone and his poor attendance record, the managers treated him respectfully and with patience.  I find that, more often than not, managers did not resort to disciplinary action when it might have been appropriate to do so and that, when a doubt arose, the outcome was in favour of the complainant.

The final aspect of the burden of proof in constructive dismissal requires an employee to demonstrate that they used their employer’s workplace procedures to have their grievance resolved.  The complainant argued that he met this test.  Having considered all the evidence, I find it difficult to decipher what the complainant’s grievance was, aside from his difficulties with following reasonable instructions and his resistance to being managed.  it is my view that, in his use of the grievance procedure on 11 occasions, the complainant’s objective was not to resolve any concerns, but to use up the resources of managers and to cause confusion and obfuscation. 

Conclusion

It is my view that, on February 24th 2020, it was reasonable for the complainant to resign.  His commencement in a new job on March 3rd shows that he had other options.  He had burned his bridges with managers and was in the middle of a disciplinary investigation and many other people in similar circumstances would have resigned.  I find however, that the complainant has not shown that his employer repudiated his contracted, or that any unreasonable treatment of him on their part was the cause of his resignation.  I also find that his use of the grievance procedure was an abuse of that process.

In conclusion, I find that the complainant has not made out the standard of the burden of proof required to show that the conduct of his employer was such that he had no alternative, but to leave his job. 

On this basis of the findings and conclusions set out above, I decide that this complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

Constructive dismissal