Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniela  Pricopi

Road Control Services Limited

Representatives

  In person

Thomas Ryan, Peninsula

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-00054738-001

27/01/2023

The complainant was employed by the Respondent from 5th January 2019 until 9th August 2022, she was employed as an office manager.

This complaint, submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 27th January 2023.

The hearing of the complaint took place in person on 18th October 2023.

As per complaint form the Complainant has outlined her complaint as follows:

The Complainant felt forced to resign from her job due to the level of stress and the impact of this on her health and her family. The Complainant made her employer aware of all the facts that were causing the stress, however they told her that it is her decision to take if she wanted to leave or stay.

After discussing her rights in relation to payment, should she decide to leave she has been told that she is not entitled to receive anything as “they have offered her enough already”. The Complainant has also made the Respondent aware of the fact that she will be seeking legal advice if required. The Complainant contends that her employer suggested to her not to do so because this might have an impact on her career and her employability.

On 19th July 2022, the Complainant had a meeting with both directors in order to discuss her employment. The main reason for this meeting was that one of the directors shouted at her in front of her colleagues. After clarifying the situation, the director apologised to the Complainant personally and agreed to apologise and explain the misunderstanding to the rest of her colleagues, that never happened. The Complainant informed the directors at that time that she would like her contract and her job responsibilities to be reviewed. She explained to them that she found it difficult to follow any instruction or task due to the lack of information she was receiving, and the confusion created by her reporting to two different directors.

The company had an official company structure where the two directors have divided themselves into departments. Lucian G. was to deal with the financial and operational department and Dumitru H. was to look after the administrative and design part.

The Complainant’s position would require that she be in between the two directors and very often she would find herself in a position where she could not do her job due to the lack of communication and disagreement between the two directors.

The explanation received after detailing her concerns was that “they have never been directors before, and they don’t know how to deal with it” and therefore it is her job to ensure they receive all the information they need in order to make decisions.

The Complainant also explained that what concerns her is the fact that she should not keep track of her own holidays/days off. As she has encountered difficulties in getting any days off or taking holidays because there was no one to cover her position. Whenever she needed time off, she would fall behind with her work. The Complainant was told that the company could not afford to hire another person.  The Complainant suggested that her duties be reviewed as she felt overwhelmed and confused by the number of different tasks she was expected to complete. At the end of this meeting the Complainant was told that she should email them some “minutes” of the meeting with the things discussed in order for them to come up with a decision.

The Complainant told the directors that this would only put more pressure on her, as she was not taking notes of the meeting, she was already behind with issuing new contracts for all the employees and she strongly believed they should be the ones coming up with a decision. The directors then told the Complainant once again that it was her decision if she decided to stay or leave.

One of the Complainant’s duties was to do a short induction with all the new employees. Not often she would find herself in the position where she would not know when an induction was scheduled and she would not have the full details of the new employee such as (name, position, pay rate ). Another responsibility of her job would require her to look after the PPSN applications for the new employees. The Complainant would have to ensure everyone had all the legal documents required for employment and to pass all their information to accounts department for these details to be processed for payments. However, most of the people who were employed were new to Ireland with no documents, experience or English. The job was to give all the information and documentation needed to the new employee to apply for their PPSN and offer additional support only if needed. As the company was very short staffed, the new employees would be required to start work immediately without the minimum legal documents required (Contract, Safe Pass, Manual Handling). The Complainant’s job was to type in all the letters for the employees PPSN. - Confirmation of Employment -which would be signed by one of the directors - Proof of Address – As most of them will be offered accommodation too, this would also be signed by directors. For the ones that were not staying in the company accommodation this letter will be signed by anyone who knows them. Some letters were signed by the Logistic Manager or by the Complainant. As the roster would make it very difficult for the employees to come to the office and sign. Also, her job was to do the online applications for the employees that were not able to do this themselves and keep track of their application. As the Complainant was often confused and encountered a lot of issues with these applications one of the Directors has clearly instructed her not to get involved in this anymore. The Complainant’s job was just to offer the information needed so the new employee had to look after his own application. Shortly after that, Lucian G.(director) has asked the Complainant to help him with another application. The Complainant politely informed him of Dumitru`s (director) instructions and told him she cannot help with this. However, he insisted telling the Complainant he is the director too, so her job is to do whatever he asks. Therefore, the Complainant had no option than to continue to do so.

 The Complainant had previously made an attempt to resign from her job in March 2022. The reason for her resignation at that time was the same. However, she was trying to leave on a good note so she told them she would like to focus on her family for a while and gave them the required 2 weeks’ notice. She was offered 2 weeks of paid time off, with further time off if needed just to reconsider. The Complainant took the time off and reconsidered, however she ended up going back as she was put under  pressure by phone calls from the (Lucian G. – director) in order to make a decision .

They did not specify if the “further time off” would be paid or not, but clearly informed the Complainant “to take as long as she needed”. The Complainant informed them at that time, that she was not in the position to make any decisions as her doctor recommended that she was to focus on her health, and if they felt like they needed to find someone else to do the job they are free to do so as she (the Complainant) completely understood the company’s needs. The Respondent insisted on   telling the Complainant how difficult it is for them to find someone else that they could trust to do her job. The Complainant provisionally agreed to go back. All the time she took off was deducted from her holiday entitlement.

The Complainant agreed to attend a meeting with the QMS Adviser on 23rd March while she was due to be away because she was the one arranging the meeting and aware of all the details that were to be discussed.

Another responsibility of the Complainant’s job was to look after the employee contracts. She has made Dumitru (director) aware of all the legal requirements. He instructed the Complainant to type in the contracts and let him deal with the rest. In July 2022 when the Complainant was asked to make sure that all the employees are being issued a new contract, she done her best to do so, she encountered difficulties once again. The Complainant suggested sending the contracts/or at least the employee handbook by email to help reduce costs. Dumitru refused this and asked the Complainant to print everything, put it in an envelope and leave the envelopes in the canteen for the operatives to pick them up, read, sign and return. If anyone had any questions, they were to contact Dumitru and clarify. The Complainant contends that she done exactly as instructed, and on 14th July all contracts were ready. The Complainant discovered that Dumitru had decided to take all the contracts from the canteen and hand them himself to the operative staff. When the Complainant received the contracts, she noticed that the signatures were backdated, same as she had been asked to backdate the issue date of the contracts. This caused more confusion and made the Complainant’s job even more difficult as she had to make sure all the 40 Employees had their employment date/ contract issued date / signed date correct.

Another issue related to the Complainant’s contracted hours. The last contract she signed was part-time (20hrs). Before she resigned, she was meant to be on a full 40-hour contract, mornings in the office and the rest from home. Part of the full-time contract was to clean the offices once a week. At some stage during her mortgage application, the company was looking for a weekend cleaner. The Complainant offered herself as she needed the extra money. It was agreed that every weekend she would go in for 2-4 hours to clean all the offices and they would pay for a full day shift. The Complainant was then working 28 hours per week. When she was offered the full time contract the Complainant was to keep doing all the admin duties, the cleaning and being a QMS Representative also. As the company kept growing and developing the Complainant informed them that she will no longer be able to do the weekend cleaning but that she could continue to keep an eye on and do small bits during my office hours if the time allowed her to do so.

At a meeting on 19th July the Complainant was told that they were not happy with the fact that she was no longer cleaning the offices at the weekends and that they have done her a favour in still paying her in full. The Complainant reminded them that this had already been discussed and as the time does not allow her to do this anymore if they decide to cut her pay she was ok with that.

Another factor that contributed to the Complainant’s resignation was the fact that her father also worked for the Respondent. One of the directors, Lucian had become the godparent of the Complainant’s daughter during her employment. The Complainant contends that she made it very clear that everyone should maintain a professional attitude while at work and not to get business life and private life mixed up. Even so, on numerous occasions, the directors would make inappropriate comments and jokes. Whenever the Complainant’s days off would coincide with her father’s days off, comments would be made as we cannot leave at the same time. Also, when her father left his position due to a medical condition, the Complainant feels that she has been blamed for taking his part and interfere with the company interests. Even though she had specifically asked not to be involved in this as she does not find this professional, the directors would continue to ask the Complainant to contact him in order to clarify his holidays. The Complainant calculated his holidays based on the information she had on record and passed it on to directors for approval. The directors decided that the Complainant’s calculations were wrong and agreed to pay him whatever they thought he was entitled to.

On 8th August 2022, the Complainant attended work as normal. While she was looking to confirm her parental leave due to start on 14th August, one of the directors (Lucian) told her it was approved and to go ahead, however she received a phone call from the other director (Dumitru) asking her to change dates if possible as this is interfering with his holiday. The Complainant clearly explained previously in person and over the phone, that she is moving house and her son is starting school so she really needed this time off. The director (Dumitru) insisted that it is in the company best interest for at least one of them to be present at work, the Complainant told him that she would try to see if she can amend the dates in any way.

The following day, the Complainant was informed that another colleague from the Design Department has been on holidays for a week without having any holiday request form submitted. The Complainant left the office at 2.00pm, she met a colleague at 3.00pm and sent in her resignation at 4.00pm.

On 9th August at 4:28pm the Complainant received an email from one of the directors (Lucian) saying he was disappointed with the Complainant’s decision and by the fact she had broken a deal. “The deal” was that he would pay her father in full, and she (the Complainant) would continue to stay in her job. The Complainant had agreed with this in a face-to-face conversation as he was very convincing and intimidating, however she found it unprofessional and inappropriate having to be in this situation. Also when “this deal “was made he was the one telling the Complainant that if she was to go any further in seeking legal advice they will deny everything and they will use the fact that that they were paying the Complainant 40 hours even though she was in the office for only 20 hours against her.

In 2019 when the Complainant started this job the company had under 15 employees. In 2022 before she decided to leave the company had approx. sixty employees with an average monthly sale of 200k /monthly. During the busy season this would go over 300k.  

The Complainant was asked to create new company forms using templates of the forms one of the directors (Dumitru) had taken from his previous company.

During the lockdown, the office was opened. Even though the office staff were in a position to work from home, Dumitru had insisted that everyone attends the office without following any of the HSE regulations. So, 3-5 people would spend a day in the same room with no ventilation or social distancing rules. When the Complainant suggested that a Covid-19 SOP (standard operating procedure) should be implemented she was told to come up with something herself even though it was not her job to do so.

 When the Complainant mentioned her holiday entitlement during her maternity leave, she was told that they were not aware of any of her rights of being entitled to holidays while on maternity leave.

Background.

1. Road Control Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) provides a vast array of traffic related services throughout the Republic of Ireland.

2. Pricopi (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) was employed as an Office Manager with the Respondent, at Unit 1 A Grant’s Parade, Greenogue Business Park, Rathcoole, County Dublin.

3. The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent on the 5th June 2019 4.

4.On the 14th August 2020 the Complainant furnished a medical certificate confirming that she was “due a baby on the 03/09/2020”.

5. The Complainant commenced maternity leave on the 14th August 2020 and returned on the 8th March 2021.

6. The Complainant resigned her position, for the first time, on the 28th February 2022 (with a last working date to be the 11th March 2022. She stated that:

 I. This was a very hard decision to make.

 II. I sincerely apologise (sic) for any inconvenience this sudden news may cause.

 III. however due to personal circumstances I am no longer able to keep my commitments.

IV. Thank you for all the great opportunities you offered me during the past 2 and a half years.

 V. I have grown professionally and personally, and I am very grateful for this.

VI. I will happily help with anything needed to make the transition smoother.

VII. Thanking you once again for your understanding and wishing you all the best of luck in the future.

7. The Respondent, by email dated the 2nd of March 2022,

I. invited the Complainant to reconsider her position.

 II. that she was a valued member of the senior management.

 III. arranged for her to have two week’s paid holidays and other additional leave if required Complainant did not use the grievance procedure before resigning.

The Complainant’s response to this letter was:

i.                 Sincerely appreciate company directors understanding and support.

ii.                 Due to very important family commitments would like to stick with date given.

iii.               Submitted however holiday request (14th March to 4th April 2022) to reconsider decision.

iv.                Confirmed that will be available to attend meeting with QMS Consultant on 23rd March 2022

8. On the 01/04/2022 the Complainant was certified as “unfit to attend work”.

9. The medical certificate confirming absence from the 4th April 2022 to the 18th April 2022 due to “work related stress”.

 10. The Respondent emailed the Complainant on the 18th of July 2022 inviting her to a meeting (the following day) to discuss “the situation”.

11. The Complainant responded on the same day referring to:

 i. today’s incident, where I have been put in the uncomfortable position of leaving the office.

ii. I would like to apologise for leaving my today’s tasks unfinished,

iii. however, with this not being the first time when I have been put in this situation.

iv. I had no other choice than to do so.

12. On the 19th July 2022 the respondents met the Complainant to discuss her allegation that one of the directors (Dumitru H) had shouted at her in front of her colleagues.

13. Mr H apologised to her and undertook to clarify it with this with staff but did not follow through with this according to the Complainant. This is not true.

14. During a meeting on the 19th July 2022 Mr H reiterated that there was no shouting involved the day before but apologised to the Complainant if she felt that the tone may be perceived as shouting. Mr H reiterated that “the situation” was caused due to Complainant’s action where she left on her dad’s desk his phone & laptop without notifying directors of this action. The Complainant’s father suddenly resigned from the position of Senior Contracts Manager on the 14th July 2022 and could not be reached in order to retrieve company phone and laptop prior “the situation”. It was also noted that the phone and laptop that was brought by Complainant had all contacts and client information erased which was making situation very difficult for company to meet its obligations towards customers.

15. On the 8th August 2022 the Complainant requested to take Parental Leave from 15th August - 4th September2022. This was agreed even though one of the directors Dumitru was on annual leave.

16. At a meeting on the 19th July 2022 the Complainant states that she requested that her contract and job responsibilities be reviewed, and that she finds that there is a lack of information. She further stated but this was not possible due to lack of information. The Respondent contents that communication was always available and despite the occasional disagreement between the directors this was not related to the Complainant’s line of work.

17. The Complainant further states that after relating her concerns the two directors said that “they have never been directors before, and they don’t know how to deal with it”. The Complainant was told that where there were any deficiencies in the director’s knowledge that she was referred to the Contract, Staff Manual and Safety Statement.

18. The Complainant also states that she had difficulty getting time off for holidays because there was no one else to do her job and the company had no one else to do her work. This is incorrect. A replacement was taken on during the Complainant’s pregnancy and annual leave.

19. The Complainant further states that she felt “overwhelmed and confused” by the number of tasks and the directors asked her to prepare minutes of the meeting and they would make a decision. The Respondent’s business peaks during the summer months. During this time the number of employees can increase by 50%. During this time all management are working at capacity.

20. It is correct that she was to obtain PPS numbers and conduct a short induction course with new employees As I had conveyed over the phone earlier today let’s meet up tomorrow at 11 am to discuss the situation. Dumitru, I believe you are engaged with the client meeting from 10-11 am, hence would 11 am suit you.

21. On the 9th of August 2022 the Complainant resigned for the second time, by her email which stated: “Dear Lucian/Dimitru, Please consider this email an official notice of my resignation with immediate effect.”

22. On the 14th of August 2020 the Complainant furnished a medical certificate confirming that she “is due a baby on the 03/09/2020”.

23. On the 27th of January 2023 the Complainant lodged her claim with the Workplace Relations Commission and set out the reasons why she resigned her position. This was five months after she resigned her position and having failed to outline the reasons for her dismissal, Internal Procedures Not Exhausted

24. The Respondent refers to the case of Geoghegan t/a Taps v A Worker INT 1014 in which the Labour Court held that “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

 25. Should the Adjudicator hold there was a dismissal (which is denied) then the Respondent holds that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and did not have reason to resign and claim that he was Constructively Dismissed.

Legal Submissions Unfair Dismissal

26. Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act as amended defines constructive dismissal as, “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.

27. The Respondent refers to the case of Kenouche v Four Star Pizza, UD 962/2008, which is cited with regards the issue of the reasonableness of the complainant’s decision to leave. In this case it was stated:

28. “…the conduct referred to in the Act cannot be petty or minor but must be something serious or significant which goes to the root of the relationship between the employer and the employee.”

29. The Respondent also refers to the case of McCormack v Dunnes Stores (UD 1421/2008) in which the tribunal stated that the law on constructive dismissal:

“…places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable”

 30.The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not lodge a grievance pertaining to the issue of pay increases. The Complainant mentioned it in passing in the substantive of a separate matter. 31.The Respondent refers to the case of Aryzta Bakeries -v- Cacs (UDD1812) as follows:

“The Court also finds that there is an obligation on the Complainant to exhaust available internal procedures and that the Complainant failed to do so. For the reasons stated above and taking account of the failure of the Complainant to exercise his right of internal appeal, the Court finds that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.”

32.The Respondent refers to the decision of An Employee v Employer (UD720/2006) where the Tribunal held that:

“the Complainant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him and this proves fatal to the Complainant’s case.”

33.The Complainant received an outcome to this along with an apology but did not appeal the outcome of this grievance.

34.In the case of Pungor v MBCC Foods Ltd. (UD584/25) the EAT determined as follows:

“The [employee]… was afforded the right of appeal, which she did not avail of. The [employee] has an obligation to exhaust the internal disciplinary process prior to seeking to enforce her rights externally. She has not satisfied her obligation and did not adduce any evidence that might justify her decision not to exhaust the internal process”.

35. The Respondent submits that the fact that the Complainant failed to lodge proper grievances in relation to his issues surrounding pay, and that he did not appeal the outcome to the grievance that he did lodge is fatal to his case.

36.The EAT in Donnegan Vs Co Limerick VEC UD828/2011 stated,

“In particular, the Complainant must show that the respondent acted in such a way that no ordinary person, could or would continue in the workplace”. Also, the respondent’s conduct was “not so unfair or so damaging to the Complainant’s rights and entitlements that she had no option but to resign her position”.

37.The Respondent submits that employees continuously remain in the workplace following investigations and disciplinaries.

38.The Complainant had not requested a pay increase to the Respondent prior to the grievance meeting. At this time the Respondent was reliant on the EWSS to pay wages and as such could not grant the pay increase sought.

39.The Respondent refers to the case of Berber v Dunnes Stores Limited [2009] IESC 10 where the Supreme Court set out the test for assessing whether a contractual term was broken by an employer’s conduct and stated:

a) "The test is objective.

b) The test requires that the conduct of both employer and employee be considered.

c) The conduct of the parties as a whole and the accumulative effect must be looked at.

d) 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.”

40. The Respondent finally refers to Ian Flaherty v College Freight Ltd. [2009] 6 JIEC 2901, where in dismissing the claim it stated that they

“accepted that there was a less than harmonious working relationship between the Complainant and DM but did not accept that the level of that relationship was such that the Complainant could show the conduct of the respondent was so unreasonable so as to justify a claim of constructive dismissal.”

41. In Kaydee Cosmetics v Elizabeth Blake the Labour Court held that,

“while the behaviour of the respondent employer was imperfect and its actions at times were `ham-fisted', it fell `short by a considerable distance' of the bar required for the complainant, a warehouse assistant, to succeed in a constructive dismissal claim”.

42. In this case issues had arisen in course of the complainant's employment which led to the complainant being issued with an informal warning and then a written warning. The written warning was subsequently appealed successfully by the complainant. The complainant was then on a period of sick leave. Further, the respondent's business suffered a downturn, and the complainant was laid off for a period. The complainant also raised various grievances which the respondent sought to address by way of a meeting but for various reasons no meeting was held to address the grievances before the complainant resigned. The Labour Court indicated that the key issue in this case was `the Respondent's behaviour towards [the Complainant] and not how the Complainant perceived it'. The Court concluded that it was `satisfied that the Respondent's behaviour was at all times focused on repairing the relationship rather than oppressing the complainant.

43. In Cedarglade Limited v Tina Hilban, the complainant, a part-time sales assistant at the respondent supermarket, had resigned following an allegedly unfair disciplinary procedure. The respondent initiated its disciplinary procedure in light of allegations that the complainant's till had been short on a particular date and, arising from that disciplinary procedure, the Complainant was issued with a verbal warning. The complainant appealed this decision, but the appeal had not been heard by the time the complainant resigned from her employment. The complainant alleged that the disciplinary procedure was fundamentally flawed, that she was bullied, harassed and traumatised by the respondent and that her health and well-being suffered significantly as a result. She alleged that she suffered panic attacks, had to attend her GP and a psychologist regularly and was certified unfit to work due to stress for periods. In such circumstances, the complainant alleged that she had no option but to tender her resignation. The complainant's solicitor had made a formal data access request on the complainant's behalf on the same day the complainant tendered her resignation. The respondent responded by offering the complainant an opportunity to reconsider her resignation. The respondent's position was that the complainant had appealed her verbal warning and such appeal was to take place when she was fit to return to work. “The respondent had not been afforded with an opportunity to address the complainant's concerns by failing to utilise its grievance and/or anti-bullying/ harassment policy.” The complainant’s complaint was not upheld.

The Labour Court dismissed both appeals and reaffirmed the following principles in constructive dismissal cases:

(i)               Constructive dismissal arises in very limited circumstances, and it requires either a fundamental breach of the contract of employment or oppressive behaviour on the part of the employer such that no reasonable person could be expected to tolerate it.

(ii)              The onus of proof rests with the complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the respondent employer were such as to justify the complainant terminating his / her employment.

(iii)             The conduct of both parties must be examined if a complainant is seeking to invoke the reasonableness test, his/her conduct should also be reasonable.

(iv)            A complainant's failure to make any complaint in relation his/her treatment prior to resignation is fatal to a claim of constructive dismissal.

Mitigation of Loss

1. Should the Adjudication Officer find that the Complainant was constructively dismissed, which is denied, it is noted at the time of lodging her claim, the Complainant had not taken up any new employment.

2. The Complainant lodged her claim on the 27th of January 2023 and is obliged as per Section 7(2)(c) of the Act to mitigate her loss.

3. The Respondent refers to the decision of Coad v Eurobase (UD1138/2013) where the Tribunal noted,

“In calculating the level of compensation the Tribunal took into consideration the efforts of the Complainant to mitigate his losses and finds that these efforts do not meet the standard as set out by the Tribunal is Sheehan v Continental Administration Cp. Ltd. (UD858/1999) that a Complainant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work. It is not enough to infirm agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work…the time that a Complainant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”

Conclusion:

 The Complainant was not dismissed. The Complainant did not use the grievance procedure before resigning. Internal Procedures were Not Exhausted. The Respondent refers to the case of Geoghegan t/a Taps v A Worker INT 1014 in which the Labour Court held that “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed”.

Should the Adjudicator hold there was a dismissal (which is denied) then the Respondent holds that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and did not have reason to resign and claim that she was Constructively Dismissed.

The Respondent representative has quoted section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977:

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act as amended defines constructive dismissal as, “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.

At the hearing of the complaint the Complainant accepted that she did not utilise the Respondent’s grievance procedure. When asked if she was aware of such a procedure, she answered that she was and then added that it was she who typed the procedure as part of an employee handbook and that she was responsible for ensuring that all employees were issued with a copy of said handbook.

The Respondent has included in their submission several cases where the complainant has failed in a complaint of constructive dismissal due to the failure to fully utilise the internal processes.

In the instant case I feel I have no option but to find that the complaint as presented by the Complainant is not well founded due to the Complainant’s failure to utilise the formal internal procedures available to her.

In the instant case I feel I have no option but to find that the complaint as presented by the Complainant is not well founded due to the Complainant’s failure to utilise the formal internal procedures available to her.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, Constructive Dismissal, failure to utilise internal procedures.