Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joanne  County

Viatel Ireland Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Kevin McNulty Venture Legal Services

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-00059634-001

26/10/2023

The Complainant was employed by Sungard Availability Services (Ireland) Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Sungard”) which was acquired by the Respondent in April 2023. After the acquisition, in May 2023, the Respondent was absorbing the Sungard business and the Complainant was issued with a TUPE letter advising her that her employment would move to the Respondent on the same terms and conditions on the 1st July 2023.  The Complainant claimed that the Respondent made her role miserable, that she was being demoted and that she was left in limbo with no role but was informed that she was not entitled to redundancy. On the 16th August 2023 the Complainant resigned from her employment with the Respondent. The Complainant referred her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) on the 26th October 2023. According to the Respondent the Complainant resigned voluntarily from her employment with the Respondent with the express intention of taking another position with a new employer which she did one week later.

Direct evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant commenced employment with a company called Hosting 365 on the 5th March 2003. Hosting365 was purchase by Sungard and she worked for Sungard for 18 years before it was acquired by the Respondent.

In 2022 the Complainant and her colleagues were informed that Sungard was being put up for sale. The Complainant was involved in the due diligence process and engaged with parties interested in purchasing the company. By Christmas 2022 it was clear to the Complainant that the Respondent was purchasing Sungard. According to the Complainant, unofficially herself and her colleagues were informed that Sungard would be run as an independent company separate to the Respondent’s main offices.

In or around April 2023 it was officially announced that Sungard had been acquired by the Respondent and that it would be merged into the Respondent’s business. At the time of the acquisition the Complainant was Sungard’s Financial Accountant. Her role and responsibilities covered all aspects of the accounting function from raising purchase orders, AP, AR including billing, bank requisitions and producing the month end financial accounts for review by the European CFO. The Complainant was also responsible for all the VAT, VIES and instratat returns for Sungard and assisted with the annual statutory audits along with some ad hoc duties.

The Complainant was concerned that she was not being  advised of what her specific role would be in the new merged entity.  She was told that she would get a new contract with the Respondent but that never happened.

The Complainant attended the Respondent’s office in May 2023 to meet with members of the finance team. A lunch was put on for her and she met other members of staff. The Complainant asked the Respondent’s Group Financial Controller what position she would hold in the Respondent’s finance department as the Respondent had restructured its finance team in 2022. The Group Financial Controller advised the Complainant that there were four teams within the Respondent’s finance department and that she would join one of those teams. The Group Financial Controller furnished the Complainant with the Respondent’s finance structure and asked the Complainant to consider which department she wanted to work in. The Complainant stated that she informed the Group Financial Controller that she did not want to join the credit control team as she regarded it as a downgrade and that she expressed an interest in working on the Financial Accounting Manager’s team.

The Complainant expressed her concerns to the Sungard Representatives that she had not been furnished with details of the role she was being offered in the Respondent and her frustration that she was being pushed into a downgraded role from what she had in Sungard. She was anxious to receive a role.

On the 26th May 2023, while the Complainant was on annual leave, she received an information letter regarding the integration of Sungard employees with the Respondent. The Complainant stated that was shocked when she received the letter setting out details regarding the transfer of her employment from Sungard to the Respondent as she was expecting an actual contract from the Respondent stating what her role would be not simply a letter outlining the integration and  transfer process. The Complainant was unhappy that no one from the Respondent’s HR department had made contact with her and following receipt of the letter communication fell flat.

The Respondent’s Chief People Officer, Ms. Jeannette Naughton, reached out to the Complainant on the 31st May 2023 to arrange a Microsoft Teams meeting. During the meeting Ms. Naughton explained that the integration process was how the Respondent moved staff across from companies it acquired to the Respondent with no issue. The Complainant expressed her concerns about being pushed into a downgraded role and of not being able to find a job description. The Complainant also asked about a pay review. The Complainant was upset on the call as she had worked for Sungard for 18 years and just wanted to know what she was stepping into. According to the Complainant, Ms. Naughton was quite comforting during the course of the meeting and assured her that the Respondent wanted the Complainant as an employee. The Complainant was informed by Ms. Naughton that the Respondent would not be making anyone redundant as there was work for everyone within the Respondent. The Complainant stated that she should have been entitled to redundancy pay as she was going into a new role however Ms. Naughton disagreed that a redundancy situation arose. Ms. Naughton stated that she would chase down the Complainant’s job description and her query regarding a pay review and she apologised to the Complainant that the Respondent’s HR department had not made contact with her earlier to explain the integration process. The Complainant gave evidence it was a comfort to her to know that the Respondent wanted her as an employee as she thought they just wanted all the information and knowledge she had.

The Complainant was nervous about what would happen on the 30th June 2023 when she officially became an employee of the Respondent on the 1st July 2023 but she was assured that she was protected under the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations and she was assured by her Sungard representative that the Respondent definitely wanted her.

On the 13th June 2023 the Complainant again requested a job description from Ms. Naughton who replied stating that there was none specific to the Complainant at that time. The Complainant was unhappy with the response and raised the issue with her Sungard representative by email on the 14th June 2023. 

On the 21st June 2023 the Complainant received a request from Ms. Naughton to schedule a catch up to try resolve the concerns and issues which she had been raising with various individuals within Sungard and the Respondent. The meeting took place on the 23rd June 2023 however the Complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome. The Complainant hoped to get a job description but she was simply shown a job sample for a role she was informed she was unqualified for. According to the Complainant Ms. Naughton informed her that it would not be a bad thing for her to go for interviews with other companies but that under no circumstances was the Complainant’s position redundant. The Complainant stated that she was unhappy that she was the only Sungard employee who was being required to take on a new role following the acquisition. The Complainant was furnished with a sample role for a financial accountant but was told that the role did not apply to her because she did not have her final qualifications even though her title in Sungard was financial accountant. According to the Complainant, because the Respondent did not recognise her as a financial account the job description was irrelevant.

On the 30th June 2023 the Complainant received an email from Sungard’s representative confirming that the Respondent had offered Sungard employees a retention bonus of 10% of their annual salary paid in December 2023 if they remained with the Respondent for 6 months. The Complainant emailed the Respondent’s HR department to confirm the conditions attached to the offer. The Complainant was also given a pay increase of 2% in July 2023 and there were no conditions attached to this. The Complainant was working long hours and enquired about getting paid overtime.

The Complainant transferred to the Respondent on the 1st July 2023. According to the Complainant Sungard was still running as a company in May, June and July 2023 and that in August 2023 there remained lose ends to tidy up. She continued to read emails and to do VAT returns for Sungard and answer queries from anyone within the Respondent who had questions about Sungard as she had corporate knowledge from Sungard. By August 2023 her role had dissolved into an administrative role. She was sending everything to the Respondent’s CFO and the CFO was producing the accounts.

She stated that she felt unwanted and was left stressed and overwhelmed. She could not take it any longer and was at breaking point with nowhere to go so she applied for another job and handed in her notice. The Complainant communicated her reasons for leaving to her manager and in her HR exit interview.

Cross-examination of Complainant by the Respondent’s Representative

The Complainant accepted that she received a welcome letter from the Respondent on the 26th May 2023 and during the integration process she received the Respondent’s policies and procedures and that she signed a number of policies and procedures. The Complainant confirmed that she was furnished with the Respondent’s grievance procedure. She accepted that before signing the documents she was asked to acknowledged that she had read the documents however she stated that she did not in fact read the grievance procedure.

The Complainant accepted that following the transfer from Sungard to the Respondent she would no longer be the sole financial person and that the she was going to be integrated into the Respondent’s finance department and that she was going to have to join a team and have a new role.

Whilst the Complainant maintained that during the meeting on the 23rd June 2023 herself and Ms. Naughton went back and forth as to whether the Complainant was qualified for the role of financial accountant within the Respondent, she accepted that following the meeting Ms. Naughton confirmed via email that the Respondent deemed the Complainant qualified by experience (QBE) for the role of financial accountant. The Complainant further accepted that Ms. Naughton was trying to help the Complainant and that the email was an expression of support.

The Complainant confirmed that the Sungard representative reached out to the Respondent on the Complainant’s behalf and that by email dated the 14th June 2023 he confirmed to the Complainant that the Respondent absolutely wanted the Complainant long term. The Complainant further accepted that she had personally received correspondence from the Respondent which explicitly made it clear that the Respondent wanted the Complainant to join its finance department.

The Complainant accepted that her letter of resignation stated that it was hard for her to resign and that at no stage prior to her resignation did she state that she was resigning because her grievances were not being addressed by the Respondent. The Complainant stated that she never raised a formal complaint through the Respondent’s procedures because she was dealing with the head of HR and she thought her workplace complaints were being dealt with.  She disagreed that it was fundamentally unacceptable for her to walk out of her employment with the Respondent.

The Complainant confirmed that she secured a new job with increased renumeration and benefits before she resigned from her employment with the Respondent and that financially she was better off in her new job. Her employment with the Respondent ended on the 13th September 2023 and she commenced employment with her new employer one week later. She stated that she was seeking compensation of one weeks’ wages.   

The Complainant was employed by Sungard which was acquired by the Respondent in April 2023. After the acquisition, in May 2023, the Respondent was absorbing the Sungard business and the Complainant was issued with a “TUPE letter” advising her that her employment would move to the Respondent, on the same terms and conditions. 

The Complainant was consulted with in regards to what role she would like in the merged entity, and how she would be accommodated and utilised in the new business, but she was never fully engaged, and seemed more interested in a redundancy, even though the business needed her to continue in the finance department.

The Complainant was moving from a smaller business, where she was the only person in finance, doing all tasks, but would need to integrate into a larger finance team. She was concerned that the business was outsourcing some elements of the finance department to relieve the pressure, but repeatedly assured that her position as a financial accountant was needed, and the terms and conditions unchanged. She was constantly positioning it that her role was redundant, despite being told that this was simply not the case. The Respondent’s expressed intention was that she would manage Sungard during the transition period and afterwards would land in an agreed role that suited her skills, experience and career aspirations, as done very successfully with other finance team members from acquired entities. The Complainant was not prepared to see that process through. 

The Respondent referred to a schedule of the interactions with the Complainant which it said showed the extent to which she was engaged with, the measures and opportunities offered to her, and the constant engagement with her dealing with the various issues she was feeling. According to the Respondent the Complainant was constantly reassured about her position, given bonuses and salary reviews, and was disappointed that redundancy was not offered. She never raised a formal grievance or complaint through the proper process, but every issue she raised informally or indirectly was addressed until she ultimately resigned.

The Respondent referred to section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended), to the definition of constructive dismissal and to the tests for constructive dismissal and to the following cases: Western Excavating (ECC) v. Sharp (1978) IRL 322, Berber v. Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61, Ranchin v. Allianz Worldwide Care S.A. (UDD/1636), Conway v. Ulster Bank Limited (UDA474/1981), Travers v. MBNA Ireland Ltd [UD720/2006].

In summary, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant resigned voluntarily with the express intention of taking another position with a new employer, which she did one week later. The Respondent has acquired eight businesses since 2020, it is significantly experienced in the procedures and requirements for the successful integration of those businesses and employees, and in most cases it needs the transferring staff to continue in employment and facilitate the ongoing operation of the acquired business. That was the case with Sungard, the Complainant was repeatedly communicated with as a valuable and continuing employee. 

According to the Respondent, the Complainant, with her long service (18 years), wanted a redundancy payment, when in fact that situation did not arise, and no such payment was on offer.  The Respondent referred to an email from the Complainant to the Sungard representative on the 14th June  2023 wherein she stated “I was told under no circumstances would redundancy be offered” and in her WRC complaint form wherein she stated “I was told nobody gets redundancy” and “I was left in limbo being told no redundancy” and submitted that her position was never redundant, the business is growing and needs people in many roles, the Complainant wanted to leave but was frustrated that she did not get an exit package and that the constructive dismissal allegation is a final attempt to extract some payment from her voluntary departure. 

The Respondent referred to its detailed Grievance Policy and Procedure, and submitted that while the complaint lists a series of dissatisfactions, the Complainant never articulated properly and clearly her exact complaints in a coherent and structured fashion. The Complainant did not utilise the internal procedures available to her and the standard of employer unreasonableness required to substantiate a claim of constructive dismissal has not been met.  She did not exhaust the procedures available to her before taking the step to resign, thereby not providing the Respondent with an opportunity to address the grievance in a proper manner. 

It was incumbent on her to utilise all internal remedies and fully exhaust the grievance policy, and failure to do so proves fatal to her case. She has also failed to show that the grievance, remedy or appeal process is in any way unfair.

The Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof to demonstrate that the conduct of the Respondent was a significant breach, going to the root of the contract of employment, or conduct even close to that.

The Complainant has failed to establish that when judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly, there is any element of the Respondent’s behaviour which was such that that the employee cannot be expected to put up with. 

The Complainant left voluntarily to pursue another opportunity. The salary is commensurate or better than the salary with the Respondent, as she had indicated in reviews what salary she was worth. Even if she is deemed constructively dismissed, she suffered no material loss.

Direct Evidence of Niamh Walsh - HR Operations Manager

Ms. Walsh commenced employment with the Respondent on the 29th May 2023 in the early weeks of the TUPE process. She gave evidence that she was involved in the transition and integration process of Sungard employees and that while she was broadly aware of the personnel requirements of the finance department she was not involved in the planning of the Group Finance team. 

In 2023 the Respondent acquired a separate entity and 6 employees were integrated into the finance department. Similar to the employees who transferred from Sungard, new roles had to be found for the transitioning employees who were integrated and time was required to ensure they ended up in roles they were happy with.

Ms. Walsh confirmed that one Sungard employee resigned prior to TUPE and that eight employees transferred across to the Respondent. At the time of the Complainant’s transfer to the Respondent there were 21 employees in the finance department and the Complainant made it 22.

It was Ms. Walsh’s understanding that there was a need for a financial accountant within the Respondent’s finance department at the time Sungard was acquired, that the Complainant was a financial accountant and that there was an ongoing need after the Complainant’s resignation for a financial accountant.  

Since the Complainant’s resignation the Respondent has made two hires in the finance department, one in the role of financial accountant and one data analysist. There are currently 23 employees in the finance department.

Cross-Examination of the HR Operations Manager by the Complainant

Ms. Walsh confirmed that she did not personally send the Complainant an offer for the role of financial accountant.

Direct Evidence of Jeannette Naughton – Chief People Officer

Ms. Naughton gave evidence that she held the position of Chief People Officer since June 2023 and that prior to this she was operating in a senior consulting people and culture role since September 2022. At the time of the acquisition of Sungard she was in a senior HR role and she was involved in the TUPE process and the integration of Sungard employees into the Respondent.

She denied that during a Microsoft Teams call in June 2023 she informed the Complainant that she was unqualified for the role of financial accountant in the Respondent. Ms. Naughton’s evidence was that during the conversation the Complainant was requesting that she be provided with a complete job outline for the position she would have on the finance team however at that point in time she had not transferred to the Respondent and remained an employee of Sungard. There was ongoing planning as to how people would be integrated into the finance team of the Respondent. The transfer of Sungard employees to the Respondent was to take place on the 1st July 2023. The Complainant indicated that her preference was a role of financial accountant and she was provided with a role description and advised that if she was patient the finance department would evolve and the right role would be found to meet her needs.

The Microsoft Teams call took place on the 23rd June 2023 around lunch time and immediately after the call Ms. Naughton furnished the Complainant with the organisation chart of the Respondent’s existing financial team and a sample job description. Ms. Naughton stated that while the job was for a qualified accountant the email explicitly stated that the Complainant was QBE – qualified by experience – and therefore she was deemed by the Respondent to be qualified for the role.

According to Ms. Naughton she was not aware of the contents of the email dated the 14th June 2023 from the Complainant to the Sungard representative wherein the Complainant stated that she was reviewing roles in the current market however the Complainant sent similar emails to her in the middle of June 2023 stating that she wanted to compare what the Respondent was offering by way of a role with what was available in the market. According to Ms. Naughton, the Complainant advised her that she was reviewing the market and any reference to the Complainant going for job interviews was solely in the context of comments made by the Complainant.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

Relevant Law

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended)

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Act”) 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 the 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.”

The statutory definition of (constructive) dismissal provides for two tests, the contract test and the reasonableness test. The contract test is where the employee argues that he or she was “entitled” to terminate the contract because of the conduct of the employer which constitutes a fundamental breach of the employee’s contract of employment. The second test, which is the reasonableness test, has two elements. First, an employee may allege that while an employer may have acted within the terms laid down in the contract of employment its conduct may be none the less unreasonable. Second, the employee has to show that he or she acted reasonably in terminating the contract of employment in the circumstances. This latter element is a key factor as it requires the employee to have considered all other possibilities prior to taking the step of terminating his or her employment.

The contract test has been summarised in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd. v. Sharp [1978] I.R.L.R. 27; [1978] QB 761 by Lord Denning MR as:

“If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.”

In the circumstances of this case, the Complainant has not identified any breach of her contract of employment on the part of the Respondent and certainly none which would amount to a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment.

If I am not satisfied that the “contract” test has been proven then I am obliged to consider the “reasonableness” test. It is well established law that the burden of proof in a constructive dismissal case is on the employee and the burden is extremely high.

The Respondent referred to the EAT decision in Marcus Reid v. Oracle EMEA (UD1350/2014) wherein it was stated that “[t]he burden of proof rests on the claimant to show that he had no choice but to leave his position with the respondent. He must show the Tribunal that his resignation was not voluntary and that the conduct of his employer was so unreasonable that he had no choice but to resign.”           

In Cedarglade Limited v. Tina Hliban (UDD1843/2018) the Labour Court noted that "the onus of proof rests with the Complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the Respondent were such as to justify her terminating her employment" and held that the complainant failed to do so.

In Murphy v. CLI Insurance Services Limited (UD976/2014) the EAT noted that "in a constructive dismissal case the employee must show that because of the employer's conduct he was entitled to resign" and held that the complainant failed to do so.

Similarly, in Burns v. ACM Community Development Society Limited (UD2166/2011), the EAT held that the complainant fell "short of the high bar set to prove constructive dismissal".

The decision in Byrne v. Horwath Bastow Charleston Wealth Management Limited (UD67/2014) sets out the test for proving the very high threshold for constructive dismissal. In this case, the claimant argued her manager had engaged in bullying and harassing behaviour towards her and had raised her concerns with HR. Notwithstanding her discussions with HR, the respondent employer did not believe it was necessary to move the claimant to another reporting line. The claimant chose to resign instead of exhausting the company's bullying and grievance policies claiming that she "had lost confidence in utilising those procedures". The EAT rejected the claimant's case and set out the test for claimants to satisfy in a constructive dismissal case as follows:  "In constructive dismissal cases, the onus is placed on the Claimant to show that her conditions and treatment in the workplace by the Respondent were so intolerable and intractable that she had no other reasonable option but to involuntary resign”.

The burden of proof in a complaint such as this is an onerous one, in that the Complainant must prove not only that the Respondent's behaviour was unreasonable, but also that the Complainant response in resigning was reasonable.

To succeed in a complaint of constructive dismissal it is incumbent on a Complainant to demonstrate their engagement with the Respondent’s internal procedures. In the case of Beatty v. Bayside Supermarkets (UD147/1987) the EAT held that:

“… it is reasonable to expect that the procedures laid down in such agreements be substantially followed in appropriate cases by employer and employee as the case may be, this is the view expressed and followed by the Tribunal in Conway v. Ulster Bank Limited UD474/1981. In this case the Tribunal considers that the procedure was not followed by the claimant and that it was unreasonable of his not to do so. Accordingly, we consider that applying the test of reasonableness to the claimant’s resignation he was not constructively dismissed”.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant must fully and properly utilise all grievance and other procedures before taking the unilateral decision to resign and subsequently claim an unfair dismissal. The Respondent referred to the case of Ranchin v. Allianz Worldwide Care S.A. (UDD1636) wherein the Labour Court held that:

“In constructive dismissal cases, the Court must examine the conduct of both parties. In normal circumstances a complainant who seeks to involve the reasonableness test in furtherance of such a claim must also act reasonably by providing the employer with an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have. They must demonstrate that they have pursued their grievance through the procedures laid down In the contract of employment before taking the step to resign: Conway v. Ulster Bank Limited UDA474/1981.”

It is for the Complainant to show on the facts of her case that she meets the high threshold as set out above and I am not satisfied that the Complainant has done so for the reasons set out hereunder.

Despite the Complainant’s assertion on a number of occasions that she was being pushed by the Respondent into a downgraded role from what she had in Sungard I find that there was no evidence to support this contention and that it lacked credibility.

While the Complainant stated in evidence that the Respondent failed to address her concerns regarding the lack of a role I find that her evidence lacked credibility and was not supported by the documentary evidence submitted to the WRC by the parties which I find shows the extent to which the Respondent engaged with the Complainant regarding her concerns.

The Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent failed to engage with her and that she was ultimately left in an administrative role lacked credibility. Having considered the evidence of the Complainant and the witnesses on behalf of the Respondent together with the documentation submitted by the parties and referred to at the hearing I find that the Respondent engaged with the Complainant prior to and throughout the integration process. The Complainant was consulted with regarding the various teams within the Respondent’s finance department and was asked for her input on what role she wanted in the merged entity. The Complainant indicated a preference to work on the Financial Accounting Manager’s team and following a Microsoft Teams meeting with Ms. Naughton on the 23rd June 2023 it was confirmed by email correspondence of the same date that the Respondent deemed the Complainant QBE – qualified by experience – for the role of a financial accountant and that it would support her in obtaining her full ACCA qualifications. Under cross-examination the Complainant accepted that Ms. Naughton was trying to help the Complainant and that the email was an expression of support.

I find that there was no evidence before me to support the Complainant’s contention that her position was redundant. The Complainant was moving from a smaller business where she was the only person in finance doing all of the tasks to a larger finance team within the Respondent where there was an ongoing need of a financial accountant. Ms. Walsh gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent that there was a need for a financial accountant within the Respondent’s finance department at the time Sungard was acquired, that the Complainant was a financial accountant, that there was an ongoing need after the Complainant’s resignation for a financial accountant and that since the Complainant’s resignation the Respondent has made two hires in the finance department, one in the role of financial accountant and one data analysist and on the Complainant’s own evidence it was apparent that the Complainant was a valued employee and that the Respondent wanted and needed her to continue working in its finance department and that there was plenty of work within that department.

 I find that the Complainant failed to exhaust all avenues at workplace level prior to her resignation in August 2023. The Complainant accepted that she acknowledged receipt of and signed that she had read the Respondent policies and procedures, which included the grievance procedure but that she did not invoke the same. I find that she did not provide the Respondent with any opportunity to investigate her claims prior to resigning and did not provide the Respondent with any opportunity to remedy any issues had any finding supported the Complainant’s claims. I accept the Respondent’s submissions that that had the Complainant made use of the internal procedures she would have been provided with the opportunity to have her grievances addressed in a proper manner and for any recommendations arising to be implemented or to appeal any findings within these policies and procedures.

In the particular circumstances of this complaint and upon consideration of all the relevant correspondence, documentation, oral evidence and submissions and the case law referred to above I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent breached her contract of employment or acted so unreasonably that she was justified in resigning and she has failed to establish that her response was reasonable in all the circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant has not discharged the burden of proving that she was constructively dismissed pursuant to the 1977 Act.

For the reasons set out above I find that the within complaint is not well-founded.