Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edel  Mcgettigan

Regan Development Regency Centra

Representatives

  self

Fiona Egan, Peninsula Group Limited

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-00048580-001

10/02/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st June 2013.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th February 2022.

Introduction

1.       Edel McGettigan (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) commenced employment with Regan Developments Limited on 1st June 2013. Regan Developments Limited traded as the Regency Hotel and the Regency Centra.

2.       The Claimant had appointed herself as the General Manager of Regan Development’s Centra.

3.       On 31st July 2017, the assets, liabilities, and trade of Regan Developments Limited transferred to Liffeyfield Limited.

4.       The Claimant transferred to Liffeyfield Limited t/a the Bonnington Centra on the 1st August 2017.

5.       The Claimant has brought a claim under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act claiming she was constructively dismissed.

6.       The Respondent denies the claim in its entirety. The Claimant was never dismissed nor ever resigned and henceforth dismissal is firmly in dispute.

Preliminary point:

1.       The Respondent submits that the Complainant lodged her claim on the 10th of February 2022, at that time or at any point thereafter to date has she resigned. The Claimant was at the time of her lodging her claim an existing employee and continues to be an employee.

2.       It is submitted by the Respondent that this is a pre- lodged claim, and the Complainant did not exhaust the internal grievance procedures nor did she actually resign before she has considered herself dismissed.

3.       The issue of pre lodged claims has been addressed in the High Court case in Brady-v- EAT (2015) ELR 1.. While it is accepted that the H.C accepted that the Claimant in that case had pre lodged his claim during his notice period therefore his termination was imminent it is submitted that in this particular case, the Claimants position with the Respondent had not yet been terminated and has in fact never been terminated.

4.      The Respondent also refers to the Tribunal case of Caragh Neeson-v- John O’Rourke & Sean O’Rourke Chartered Accountants (UD2049/2011) where the question of whether a Claimant has lodged claim papers but is still in fact employed by the Respondent was considered. The Tribunal found that the wording of section 8(2) “demonstrates a manifest intention by the legislature to preclude claims being lodged before the dismissal date” The Tribunal went on to state, “if the Tribunal were to look with leniency on premature claims the system could well become clogged up with claims based on the expectation that a dismissal might occur sometime in the future which could later be withdrawn”.

5.      It is submitted that based on the above in that the Claimant herein had not resigned at the time of lodging her claim that the Adjudicator in this matter should decline jurisdiction to hear this claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

At the hearing the Complainant submitted a volume of papers. These papers were in no order and covered subjects including her return from maternity leave, payment during a period of maternity leave and also the repayment of a loan she had made to her employer.

I have carefully read through the papers on file and note that the papers provided by the Complainant include events going back as far as May 2017.

The representative of the Respondent has stated that the Complainant’s complaint is that she was constructively dismissed. This is not so. As per complaint form the Complainant states that she was dismissed from her employment on 5th November 2021.

I can find no evidence of any dismissal taking place. There was no disciplinary process followed and regarding constructive dismissal there is no letter of resignation.

In this particular case the Respondent is a family owned and managed business and some family members are in senior management positions. At some stage the Complainant spoke to the Chairman of the company who happens to be her father-in-law. Whatever methods that were adopted to address issues were, at times, not the methods one would normally find in the workplace.

No dismissal took place.

At the hearing the Respondent representative stated that the Complainant is still technically an employee of the Respondent. I would suggest that the Complainant utilise a proper grievance procedure to address any problems that may still exist.

The Complaint as submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 is not well founded.

The Complaint as submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 is not well founded.