Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mrs Adriana Milena Ricaurte Claro

Computer Training Specialists Limited T/A Dorset College

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Mr Milosz Brozek husband of the Complainant

Mr John Keenan HR Advisor

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-00057361-001

26/06/2023

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 26/06/2023 as a complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 18/01/2024. 

The specific complaint CA-00057361-001 is of unfair dismissal and the Complainant satisfies the statutory service requirement in order to seek the protections of the Act.  The redress the Complainant seeks is compensation.    

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 04/07/2005 until she resigned her employment on 03/01/2023, with such resignation taking effect on 12/01/2023.  The Complainant at all material times was employed by the Respondent in the role of Admissions Officer.  The Complainant worked a 32-hour week for which she received a salary of €576.92 gross per week. 

The Respondent is a private college providing training in Computing, Business, English Language, University Foundation Programmes and Healthcare. 

The Respondent submits that this complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is misconceived as the Complainant resigned her employment.

The Complainant relied on her WRC complaint form and did not file any further submissions.  The Respondent filed a written factual submission on 04/01/2024 followed by a further submission on 16/01/2024.

I have carefully reviewed the Complainant’s WRC complaint form from which I have extrapolated the core issues of her complaint and I summarise hereunder.

CA-00057361-001

The Complainant refers to her recent dismissal from the Respondent company in which she submits she was a dedicated employee for nearly 20 years.  The Complainant provides context for periods of absence since she was diagnosed with an illness in 2009.  This has resulted in periods of absences from work and occasional hospitalisation typically lasting between 6-8 weeks.  The Complainant submits she has always endeavoured to return to work promptly following any medical leave.

The Complainant submits in October 2022 a new HR Manager Ms Linda Lynch joined the company (hereafter LL).  In early November the Complainant submits she had a 1:1 with LL during which she provided an overview of the responsibilities of her role.  The Complainant submits she disclosed her recent recovery from a medical condition that had necessitated a leave of absence specifically mentioning that she struggles with handling stress and that she was still experiencing residual low mood following a previous episode earlier in the year.  The Complainant formed the impression that LL had concerns about her medical leave and that she reacted unfavourably to the disclosure of same.

The Complainant submits she was summoned to a meeting by LL on 15 December 2023 and LL informed her the company was undergoing a restructuring and as a result the Complainant would be reassigned exclusively to the Accommodation Officer role.  The Complainant submits this is known to be the most stressful role within the Respondent company.  The Complainant submits she was told she was now going to have to work 5 days per week instead of 4.  The Complainant submits she outlined her inability to accept the new role for the following 3 reasons:

1.      The Complainant submits such a change represented a substantial downgrade to her professional career despite her excellent performance and the absence of any complaints regarding her work.

2.      The Complainant submits her prior experience as an Accommodation Officer albeit for EFL students had caused her immense stress and triggered an episode.

3.      The Complainant submits the increased number of working days would impact negatively on her mental health and this was known to the owners of the company and she had been working 3 and 4 days a week for years to make sure she managed her sickness. 

The Complainant submits she told LL during the meeting the proposed change was unjust after nearly two decades of dedicated service.  The Complainant submits she had two options either to accept the new position or to resign.  After the meeting the Complainant submits she reached out to LL asking if they could give her a voluntary redundancy package but she was told this was not a redundancy as the job was not going to disappear.  The Complainant submits the Director of the Respondent company offered to give her €8000 as another tool to convince her to resign but that anyway this money was never paid to her. 

The Complainant submits it was Christmas time and she was told to think about her decision.  The Complainant submits she received a call on 03 January when she returned from LL and she expressed her desire to remain in her current position as she was not willing to leave.  The Complainant submits she made it clear she would not work in accommodation department due to the stress it would cause her.  The Complainant submits she was coerced into accepting a severance package and informed her last day of employment would be 12 January 2023. 

The Complainant submits she reached out to her psychiatrist who advised she immediately take a week off work and she received a letter from her psychiatrist on 04/01/2023 stating the need for a week of rest but she submits HR disregarded this and she did not receive any response from them.

The Complainant submits the chosen date for her departure was imposed on her.   The Complainant submits they did not bid her a proper farewell and there was no acknowledgement through farewell gatherings.  The Complainant submits that during a meeting with LL and the Director of the company on 10 January 2023 the sum of €8000 was mentioned that was intended to assist her in her job search but she never received it.

The Complainant submits that the intention of this appeal is not to seek for the not paid agreed amount but she believes it is essential to pursue a case for a full two years’ salary as compensation, taking into account the circumstances.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant on affirmation

The Complainant states she wanted to keep her job and that something wasn’t right with the behaviour of management.  The Complainant outlines that at the 1:1 meeting on 15 December she had explained she was feeling depressed and stressed.  Having regard to the company restructuring the Complainant states she did not agree with the restructuring suggestions and she contacted the Director to tell him so.   The Complainant states she approached LL about redundancy on 21 December.  The Complainant states she loved her job and she loved interacting with the students.  The Complainant states they never paid her the money and nobody came to say good-bye to her.  The Complainant states she was looking for something more than €8000 when she was told redundancy was not possible. 

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant

The Complainant confirmed she commenced in 2005 initially on 5 days per week which changed to 4 in 2011.  The Complainant accepts the Respondent was always accommodating in respect of her illness and of the different work patterns during her employment at her request.  The Complainant accepts she never had any difficulties with the Respondent. 

It is put to the Complainant that the Respondent had always acknowledged that she was a very conscientious employee with a number of medical challenges along the way to which the college was always accommodating with which she agrees. 

It is put to the Complainant that she did resign as she did not want to accept the alternative offer and she made the choice to resign to which she does not respond as her representative interrupts.

It is put to the Complainant that the letter from her psychiatrist to which her representative refers and to which she refers on her complaint form that she says she submitted to HR and was ignored by them was never in fact received by HR.  The Complainant is asked to whom she gave the letter and she cannot recall. 

It is put to the Complainant that she believed that the €8000 would be paid to her to which she responds she was very disappointed that nobody followed up with the payment. 

The Complainant is asked if she had contacted the Respondent at any time between January and the filing of her WRC complaint in June to ask them for the €8000 to which she responds no.  It is put to the Complainant that she was angry with the Respondent which she accepts. 

It is put to the Complainant that she was angry and the complaint is filed by her and the Respondent finds they are being dragged to the WRC and now both parties are aggrieved all over the €8000.  It is put to the Complainant that she was not satisfied with the €8000 with which she agrees and she indicates that she had been in contact through What’s App messages with the Director prior to leaving in an effort to get more money.  The Complainant representative states the Complainant is looking for and wants to be paid the same amount as she would have been paid if it had been a redundancy situation.    

CA-00057361-001

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from July 2005 through to January 2023, when her employment ended.  The Complainant submitted her resignation by email dated January 3rd, 2023 to Ms Linda Lynch, HR Manager with the Respondent.

This reads:

“Dear Linda,

I wish to confirm my resignation from Dorset College.

I would like my last working date to be on 12 January.

Regards

Adriana Ricaurte

EFL Admissions Officer”

Ms Lynch had requested the Complainant to confirm her decision to resign, in writing, following a number of discussions which began between LL and the Complainant at a meeting on December 6th, 2022.

LL joined the Respondent’s employment in November 2022, and was tasked with addressing a number of particular matters arising in the business at that time. One such matter was the need to dedicate a resource to managing student accommodation requirements.  This particular matter arose as a legacy issue from the management of the Covid 19 pandemic in 2020/2021, as well as the growth in demand for rented accommodation generally.

Prior to the imperative to managing student accommodation differently, accommodation was managed by separate personnel in the Higher Education College component of the Respondent’s business, and in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) School component.  Accommodation with ‘host families’ was primarily relied upon for EFL students, and dormitory accommodation was a feature for Higher Education.

To deal with the imperative to focus on the issue of accommodation, in the context referred to, it was decided to concentrate the management of accommodation in a single resource.

At this meeting which was also about LL gaining an understanding of the Complainant’s role as EFL Admissions Officer the Complainant declared to Ms Lynch her ongoing health challenges with her medical condition. 

This is a condition with which the Complainant was diagnosed in or about 2009, and of which the Respondent has been aware since then, and which has resulted in the Respondent endeavouring to support the Complainant when her condition became intense on some occasions.

At the time LL spoke with the Complainant i.e. on December 6th, 2022, it had been reported that she, the Complainant was spoken to by her then manager, about some issues regarding work performance, and this was touched on at the December 6th meeting.

Ms Lynch undertook to speak with the Complainant’s manager, and to follow-up again with the Complainant. 

On December 15th, 2022, LL met with the Complainant for a second time.  At this meeting. LL explained that the reducing number of EFL students, partly consequent on the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic, meant that the role of Admissions Officer had become less busy, and at the same time student accommodation was an emerging challenge in Higher Education, as well as in the EFL school despite the reduction in overall numbers.  In the latter regard, Covid 19 left as one of its legacies a very significant reduction of ‘host families’ for students.

On the one hand, the Complainant’s role as Admissions Officer was becoming diminished, while on the other hand, the management of student accommodation generally, was increasing.  In addition, the EFL Director of studies considered it necessary to have an administrative presence for students in the EFL school on five days each week.  The Complainant was that presence from Monday to Thursday.

In this context, the Complainant was advised that a restructuring imperative in the EFL school had emerged alongside an accommodation challenge generally.

It was because of her long experience in the business and specifically her previous experience in arranging access to accommodation for students, that it was decided to consider the reassignment of the Complainant from her role as Admissions Officer with the EFL school, to the role of Accommodation Officer across the business.

To do so, she would return to 8 Belvedere Place from 58 Charles St Great ; 200 metres away.  The effect of the change in role would be to protect the Complainant’s hours from an imperative to reduce or increase them.  She would maintain her pay, and her 4-day week.

When this was explained, the Complainant indicated that she could not afford to reduce her hours in the Admissions Officer role, in which she encompassed involvement in student accommodation, in any event.  She was reassured that the change would not involve any change to her pay or hours.  However, the Complainant said that she did not wish to relocate, or to take on the accommodation role proposed.

The meeting concluded on the basis that the Complainant would give further consideration to the potential change in her role and return to the main Dorset College building in Belvedere Place.  As part of this consideration, the Complainant was asked to consider the fact that a change from Admissions to Accommodation would involve less direct interaction with students who could be very demanding, and more interaction with accommodation providers, something she was involved in at the EFL school, and had done previously, potentially relieving ‘pressures’ rather than maintaining or increasing them.

At a follow-up meeting on December 21st, 2022, LL responded to a suggestion, made by the Complainant on or about December 19th, 2022, that the Respondent could make her redundant.  LL explained that redundancy did not arise in the circumstances concerned, therefore it was not option that could be properly or appropriately considered.

In response, the Complainant indicated that on health advice, she considered that seeking alternative employment outside of the Respondent company in a “less stressful” job was what she needed.

In the context of the emerging circumstances, Ms Lynch was authorised to advise the Complainant that an Ex-Gratia lump sum of €8000 would be given to her in acknowledgement of her service in the business, should she decide to leave in order to seek an alternative position outside of the Respondent company.   LL invited the Complainant to consider her situation over the Christmas break.

In the event, when work resumed in the first week in January 2023, the Complainant advised LL that she had decided to resign.  LL asked her to formalise this in writing, and the Complainant did so by email dated January 3rd, 2023 per text set out above.  It was clearly agreed that in the circumstances concerned the €8000 Ex-Gratia goodwill termination payment would issue to the Complainant. 

Unfortunately, through a combination of misunderstanding and/or deficiency in internal communication and /or with the Complainant, the €8000 payment was not made.  It is understood as a result of the failure to issue payment the Complainant decided to refer matters to the Workplace Relations Commission in the form of the instant complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

This referral and failure in payment promised in effect polarised the parties for a period of time.  However, following a failure to reach agreement at mediation under the auspices of the WRC, the Respondent in acknowledgment of deficiency in internal communications, and without prejudice the position adopted in respect of the Complaint made under the Unfair Dismissals Act made a arrangement to issue a cheque payment to the Complainant in the agreed amount of €8000.  This payment issued on 15th November 2023. 

In Summary, it is the Respondent’s position that the complaint in the instant case under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015 is misconceived.  The Complainant resigned from her employment in the circumstances outlined.  Prior to accepting her resignation, the Complainant was afforded the opportunity to consider alternatives.  An unfortunate confluence of deficiency in communication and error, gave rise to misunderstanding and polarised the parties, and this circumstance manifest itself in the instant Complaint.

In all of the circumstances, it is submitted that the Complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded, and therefore cannot and should not be upheld.

Direct evidence of Respondent witness LL on oath

The witness confirms she commenced in her role in November 2022 and as part of her role she undertook 1:1s with the staff.  LL described her meeting with the Complainant on 6 December and she said they had a really nice conversation.  LL states the Complainant told her all about her role and her medical diagnosis in 2009 and the Complainant told her how it affected her day-to-day life. 

LL states the Complainant told her how stressful dealing with the students is.   LL states she asked the Complainant about what supports she had in place to help her to manage her condition and offered her any supports the could provide including counselling but the Complainant did not take up anything offered.  LL states the meeting lasted between 30-40 minutes.

The witness describes the organisational structure and states part of her role was to look at the EFL school and the various different legacy impacts due to Covid.  The number of students was down and there were two senior people leaving.  There was an emerging problem in relation to accommodation.  The witness states there was a full review undertaken of the EFL school and it was decided by the Director that there was a presence required in admissions 5 days a week mornings only. 

LL describes the Complainant became upset at the meeting on 15 December when she broached with her the proposal that she move from admissions to the accommodation role.  LL states the Complainant would already have had an involvement in accommodation.  LL states the Complainant had outlined to her that she was struggling to keep a smile on her face every day when dealing directly with the students.  The witness submits the proposed role would have involved a physical move to the building 200 metres from where the Complainant was currently located.  At the follow up meeting on 21 December LL states the Complainant informed her that she did not wish to take up either of the two options namely the 5-morning role or the accommodation officer role on the same terms and conditions.  LL states the Complainant proposed redundancy but it was explained to her that this would not fall under the category of a redundancy.  LL states the Complainant outlined to her that she felt her time with the Respondent was coming to an end and that she had spoken to her doctor and she wanted a less stressful job and closer to home in which LL describes what she recalls as a very poignant conversation between the two of them. 

LL states the Director of the company authorised a goodwill gesture of €8000 to tide her over until she found another position which was less stressful and closer to home.  LL states she asked the Complainant to take the 2 weeks over Christmas to think about it as she did not want the Complainant to make a rash decision.  LL states the Complainant came back after Christmas and told her she had decided to resign.  LL states the Complainant worked until 12 January which was the agreed end date taking into account the amount of annual leave the Complainant had accrued during 2022 when she was on sick leave.  The witness states there was no celebration when she left as the Complainant had told the Director of the company she did not want anything big and there was a farewell lunch arranged with the EFL team in deference to her assertion that she did not want a big “do”. 

LL confirms the Respondent was unaware the €8000 had not been paid until such time as they received the WRC complaint form in June.  LL confirms the Complainant never came looking for the payment during the intervening period between January and June. 

Cross-examination of Respondent witness LL

LL is asked what supports she offered the Complainant as the Complainant does not recall being offered any support to which the witness responds she specifically offered the counselling sessions at a reduced rate of €20 and they had a discussion about mindfulness and the benefit of vitamin D during the winter months.

The witness is questioned about her assertion that the number of students is dropping and it is put her that the numbers are in fact rising.  When the witness is asked what makes her think the Complainant did not like her job she responds that she is simply reiterating what the Complainant had said to her. 

When asked why LL had stated the finishing date was the Complainant’s choice it was explained by LL that when she undertook a holiday audit she discovered the Complainant had had taken no annual leave in 2022 and this was factored into the notice period.   

CA-00057361-001

In conducting my investigation, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.    I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

Having carefully considered at length all the evidence presented to me I find the within complaint is characterised by significant disparity in the perception of the parties as to the manner in which events unfolded during the latter end of the Complainant’s employment in the Respondent company.

Notwithstanding, I am obliged to draw my conclusions from the facts as presented to me and by the application of the law to those said facts whilst taking into account all other relevant factors and   surrounding circumstances.  The role of the Adjudication Officer is to decide the case before him/her, resolving conflicts in evidence according to the direct evidence presented at hearing. 

At the outset, I note this is a claim of unfair dismissal simpliciter.  It is not a claim of constructive dismissal.  I note and I am cognisant of the fact the Complainant is a litigant in person represented by her husband.  I explained the law to the Complainant and her husband at hearing within the parameters of that which is permitted of an Adjudication Officer in such a situation.  I note a complaint of constructive dismissal would have been the more appropriate route in such circumstances. 

Accordingly, for the sake of completeness and for the avoidance of any possible doubt in this matter I will investigate the complaint in terms of both unfair dismissal simpliciter and in terms of a claim for constructive dismissal.  The WRC complaint form is not a statutory form and the Respondent is on notice of the complaint as detailed in the narrative of the complaint form.  I am satisfied there will be no prejudice to the Respondent.  If a complaint is contained within the narrative of the complaint form, it is properly before me for inquiry.  Section 41(5)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 confers a statutory obligation on an Adjudication Officer to whom a complaint is referred to inquire into the complaint and to make a decision in relation to the complaint. 

The Relevant Law – Unfair Dismissal

It is necessary to apply the factual matrix to the applicable statutory provisions and caselaw to determine whether a dismissal had in fact taken place in the instant case within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 and if so, whether it was unfair.  

A complaint of unfair dismissal which is referred under section 8 of the Act requires a dismissal to have taken place as a jurisdictional pre-requisite by virtue of section 6 of the Act which provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.” 

Section 1 of the Act defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee in the context of a complaint of unfair dismissal as:

“(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.” 

This is a complaint of unfair dismissal, and there must, therefore, be a dismissal within the definition of section 1.  This encompasses where the employer terminates the employment relationship, or where the employee shows they were constructively dismissed.  In the instant case I find the Complainant was not dismissed by the Respondent.  The Complainant resigned her employment using words of resignation that were unequivocal and unambiguous.  There is no dismissal within the definition of section 1(a) of the Act. 

For the sake of completeness, I will examine this complaint through the prism of section 1(b) of the Act which provides for constructive dismissal.

The Relevant Law – Constructive Dismissal

Section 1(b) provides as follows:

“dismissal,” in relation to an employee, means –

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer.”

The burden of proof rests squarely on a complainant in a complaint of constructive dismissal.   There is an extensive line of case law which reflects the tests applicable in a claim for constructive dismissal and it has been acknowledged that a complainant faces a high bar in pursuing such claims Nicola Coffey v. Connect Family Resource Centre [UD/116 2014]. 

Significant legal precedent exists which establishes that, for a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, it has to satisfy either one or a combination of both of the following “tests”.

There are two sets of circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal.  The law is well settled here, and these tests are known as the “contract” test and the “reasonableness” test.  The first test, that of breach of contract, requires that the contract of employment has to have been breached to such a degree that the employee is left with no option but to resign.  It is now generally understood that an employee must also act reasonably in terminating their employment and that resignation must not be the first option taken by the employee.  All other options including grievance procedures must be explored. 

The reasonableness test requires that the employee must satisfactorily demonstrate that the employer behaved or acted in a manner, which was so unreasonable as to make it impossible for the employee to continue in the employment.  The employee must show that his behaviour/action in resigning was reasonable in all the circumstances. 

In Berber v. Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 ELR, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“There is implied in a contract of employment a mutual obligation that the employer and the employee will not without reasonable and proper cause conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between them.  The term is implied by law and is incident to all contracts of employment unless expressly excluded.  The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.”

In the English case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332 Denning J stated:

“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 of more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance.”

In considering whether there has been a constructive dismissal I have to determine whether there has been a repudiatory breach of contract by the Respondent, or, if there has been no repudiatory breach, whether the Respondent engaged in conduct which made it reasonable for the Complainant to terminate her contract. 

The Contract Test:

I must consider whether there has been a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment.  On the basis of the evidence as presented to me the Respondent underwent a restructuring programme in response to changing business needs.  The Complainant was offered a role in accommodation as opposed to her current role in admissions.  The proposed role was on the same terms and conditions and for a 4-day week some 200 metres away from her current location which was the Complainant’s preferred working pattern at the material time albeit I note her working pattern seemed to involve many iterations during the course of her employment with the Respondent. 

The Complainant was offered an alternative 5 morning per week role also in admissions but she did not wish to work 5 mornings.  I conclude and I am satisfied there is no evidence to suggest the Respondent no longer intended to be bound by any essential term of the contract.  I find that the Complainant has not pointed to any action on the part of the Respondent that demonstrates that there was a significant, or for that matter, a minor breach of her contract. 

The Reasonableness Test:

I cannot find the Respondent acted in a manner which was so unreasonable as to make it impossible for the Complainant to continue in the employment for the following reasons.  Based on the evidence adduced I am of the view the employment relationship was one in which there was no history of amicus or discord between the parties.  The Complainant accepted she had always been accommodated by the Respondent.  I fully accept the Complainant was disappointed by the proposed changes but I have to recognise the Respondent’s right to restructure. 

I note that when the Complainant articulated the view that it was time to consider looking for a less stressful job closer to home the Director offered her a good will gesture in the sum of €8000 to tide her over while she sought alternative employment.  I note the payment was to be made without any “strings attached” and by this I mean that there was no requirement that the Complainant sign anything or waive of any of her rights albeit I note the Complainant does refer to it in her submission as a “severance package.”  I am satisfied this was not a severance package as it did not bear any of the hallmarks of a severance package or that which is commonly referred to as a compromise agreement.  I am satisfied this was a good will gesture plain and simple. 

I note from the evidence adduced it was the Complainant who instigated the matter of a payment in the first instance after she had been informed this was not a redundancy situation and she then engaged in What’s App negotiations with the Director directly herself in repeated attempts to increase the amount as stated by the Complainant in direct evidence. 

I find that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent’s conduct was unreasonable or was such that she had no option but to resign her position or that the conduct of the Respondent was such as to show that it no longer intended to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract. 

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced at hearing I am of the view the crux and the central plank of the Complainant’s case is all to do with the €8000 and the inadvertent failure of the Respondent to pay same which I am satisfied was the catalyst for the filing of this complaint.  The issue which comes into sharp focus throughout is the €8,000 and the Complainant’s endeavours to increase this amount as evidenced by her assertion that she was seeking the same as she would have received had a redundancy situation existed.  I note the sum of €8,000 has since been paid and the cheque has been cashed.    

For the sake of completeness and the avoidance of any possible doubt I have thoroughly investigated this complaint under sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts and I have applied the law to the facts as presented to me. 

In terms of section 1(a) I find the Complainant was not dismissed by the Respondent.  There is no dismissal within the definition of section 1(a) of the Act.  The Complainant resigned her employment. 

In terms of section 1(b) for the sake of completeness, I find on balance that the Complainant reached the decision to resign from her employment of her own volition and was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.  The Complainant has not discharged the burden placed on her by the Act. 

Unfair dismissal; constructive dismissal; good will gesture; failure to pay;

Unfair dismissal simpliciter; constructive dismissal; severance agreement;