Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Zara  Yaffe

Weir & Sons

Representatives

  In person

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh, Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059905-002

01/12/2023

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in the role of ‘Sales Assistant’ on 18th January 2022.

Employment ended on 10th November 2023.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st December 2023.

In the Complainant’s own words, she states the following:

I was summoned to a meeting without any notice on 06.09.2023. Present were the Head of People and Culture and Mr. Danny Creedon (a new hire that I had never met) it was clear from his silence that his role was that of witness. Ms Menelaou (Head of People and Culture) informed that I was being transferred to Grafton Street’s Silverware department (a department outside my professional expertise). I experienced her demeanour as intimidating. I was informed that if I had any problem with the transfer, I would have to talk with a director. It was conveyed that I had no choice in the matter and the suggestion of the involvement of a director was viewed by me as threatening.

The series of emails attached to my complaint evince a quite extraordinary and disrespectful attitude adopted by Weirs management in response to my reasonable request for valid reasons to remain in my position in Dundrum. My complaint includes but is not exclusive to the following:

1.       Weirs failed to give any actual consideration to my legitimate request to remain in Dundrum for valid reasons. The move to Grafton Street was not to my personal, professional or financial advantage. It would have impacted an already stretched budget, added a minimum of two hours travel to my working day impacting my capacity to care for my elderly and ill Mother outside working hours and be close by in case of emergency. My work/life balance and obligations were clearly not considered.

2.       Weirs management have to date failed to address a formal complaint lodged by me against Ms Menelaou.

3.       Weirs failed to respond to a request that the facilitate mediation through the WRC.

4.       Weirs advertised my position in Dundrum prior to any agreement regarding the transfer. This suggests that the inflexible attitude adopted by management was the exercise of power for powers sake. It was totally illogical that they were removing an employee who wished to stay rather than employ someone for the position in Grafton Street.

5.       The tone of the written communications from Weirs management can only be considered aspassive aggressive bullying. For example, I developed a work related stress condition which required medical leave. While I was on sick leave, HR emailed me contact details for a mental health support service. I would also cite their persistent failure to actually address the issues contained in my communications as disrespectful and deliberately intended to frustrate resolution of matters which further contributed to the unnecessary stress caused.

6.       It is a matter of grave concern that Weirs as recently as yesterday cited a contract signed by me. Such a document simply does not exist. I was given a contract at the start of my employment but never signed it. As time went on it was not an issue for me. I did not think it was relevant. I was happy in my job, I had an exemplary work record, received exceptionally favourable work reviews from management and customers alike. I had also received salary increases based on performance. In short, I was exceptionally happy in my job. I am of the opinion that the disrespect I have experienced from the highest levels of management at Weirs left me with no option but to resign.

Background to the Respondent

The Respondent company – established in 1869 – is an Irish retailer which offers luxury and designer jewellery, watches and silverware. Today, the Respondent is still a family-owned concern which employs over 80 people. The Respondent’s stores are located on Grafton Street, O’Connell Street and Dundrum Shopping Centre, Co. Dublin.

Background to the Complainant

·       The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in the role of ‘Sales Consultant’ on the 18th of January 2022 at the Respondent’s Dundrum Store. The contract sets out as follows:

·       The Complainant’s rate of pay was €14.00 (gross) per hour on commencement.

·       The Complainant’s normal hours of work were set between 9am – 10pm Monday to Sunday inclusive dependent on her roster with one rotating day off each week with the Respondent reserving the right to alter hours of work from time to time.

·       In relation to ‘Flexibility’, the contract stated that the Complainant ‘will be required to be flexible in this position and must be prepared to undertake such other duties as be assigned to you by the Company from time to time.’

·       In relation to ‘Place of Work’ the contract stated that ‘the position as Sales Consultant is not branch specific or department specific. However, in the event of a transfer between departments or branches, you will be given as much notice of any such change of work as it reasonably practicable.’

·       In relation to ‘Grievance Procedures’ the contract stated that ‘If you have any grievance, which you consider to be genuine in respect of any aspect of your employment, you have the right to a hearing by your immediate supervisor or other management as circumstances warrant. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the hearing you may appeal to a more senior manager.’

·       In Relation to ‘Policies’, the contract stated that “this statement sets out the terms and conditions of employment, which together with any relevant document (such as company handbook, internet/social media policy, bullying and harassment policy disciplinary procedure) constitute your contract of employment with the Company”. 

·       The Respondent’s Dignity in the Workplace and Grievance Policy were produced at the hearing.

·       On the 19th of January 2022, the Respondent and the Complainant signed and dated the contract.

·       The Complainant resigned from her position of employment on the 10th of November 2023.

Background to Claim

·       On the 6th of September 2023, Head of People and Culture Ms. Renée Menelaou, met with the Complainant to inform her that the Board had requested for her to move to the Respondent’s Grafton Street Store. Human Resource Generalist, Mr. Danny Creedon also attended the meeting as it was an opportunity to meet staff in the Dundrum Store. 

·       Ms. Menelaou explained to the Complainant that there was a requirement from the Board to move employees between the stores as a result of ongoing change in relation to store staffing requirements. In turn, the Complainant’s experience and service was required in the Respondent’s Silver Department in Grafton Street.

·       The Complainant noted that she required time to think about the request with reference to her commute. The Complainant also noted during the meeting that she would be more agreeable to the request if her services were required in the Jewellery department at the Grafton Street Store.

·       Ms. Menelaou clarified that her experience and services were required in the Silver Department, but the Respondent would look to review her station every two months, and there may be an opportunity to return to the Jewellery department depending on business/staffing needs.

·       The Complainant questioned the course of action if she refused the Respondent’s request. Ms. Menelaou explained that the terms and conditions pertaining to the Complainant’s contract with reference to the flexibility and place of work clauses and noted that such clauses were in all employee contracts and that requests of this nature happen from time to time depending on business needs. Ms. Menelaou further advised that the Complainant needed to have a separate conversation with Managing Director Mr. Chris Andrews if she refused to move stores, based on the Respondent’s request and would follow up with the Complainant in writing with a recap of the conversation and request.

·       It was brought to Ms. Menelaou’s attention that immediately after her store departure, the Complainant reached out to the Respondent’s former Dundrum Store Manager to ask if it was reasonable for management to request for her to move to the Grafton Street Store. The former manager advised the Complainant that inter store movements were common due to the clauses within both their contracts.

·       On the 7th of September 2023, HR Manager Ms. Carla Ryan forwarded the Complainant a copy of her employment contract.

·       Ms Menelaou followed up with an email to the Complainant clarifying the details of the store transfer request and advised the Complainant of the expectation for her to report to the Grafton Street store at the end of September, giving the Complainant one months’ notice.

·       The Complainant responded that she would look further into the details provided and would respond to Ms. Menelaou via email.

·       On the 8th of September 2023, Ms Menelaou replied to the Complainant to inform her that she could contact her directly at any time to discuss concerns or answer any questions that she may have in relation to the arrangement.

·       A few days later, on the 11th of September 2023, Ms. Menelaou followed up with the Complainant requesting an update as she had not received any further correspondence and suggested a meeting to discuss next steps.

·       The Complainant responded that she was not in a position to give a definitive answer as moving to the Silverware department felt like a demotion, and that she also needed to consider the extra expense that may be incurred in relation to the commute to the Grafton Street store. The Complainant copied Operations Director Mr. Severin and Managing Director Mr. Chris Andrews on the email. The Complainant advised that she would be in touch over the coming days.

·       On the 18th of September 2023, Ms. Menelaou reached out to the Complainant requesting an update further to past correspondence.

·       The Complainant responded that she would provide clarity on the matter soon and attached a positive Google Review she received for her work with the Respondent.

·       Ms. Menelaou congratulated the Complainant on her positive review and noted that she looked forward to her response.

·       On the 25th of September 2023, the Complainant emailed Ms. Menelaou, stating that she had given the request due consideration and requested to meet with the Respondent’s Operations Director to discuss the store transfer request. 

·       Ms. Menelaou confirmed that Mr. Severin Plassat was available to meet her on the 27th of September 2023, at the Grafton Street store at 12.30pm and requested for the Complainant to confirm her attendance.

·       The Complainant replied that she was rostered to work that day and requested to bring a friend to the meeting.

·       On the 26th of September 2023, Ms. Menelaou emailed the Complainant to thank her for confirming her attendance and advised that that since the meeting was at her request, and not one of a formal nature, she may bring an internal colleague of her choice to the meeting and requested for the Complainant to confirm her work companion. 

·       The Complainant replied, stating that Ms. Menelaou was mistaken, and she did not confirm her attendance and going forward she would only deal with Mr. Severin Plassat.

·       Ms. Menelaou apologised for the misunderstanding and further noted that she would request for Mr. Plassat to contact the Complainant

·       On the 27th of September 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Plassat to formally complain about Ms. Menelaou’s behaviour in relation to the transfer request, alleging that Ms. Menelaou had acted carelessly and intimidating.

·       For the first time regarding store transfer request communication, the Complainant flagged that she was her mother’s carer and that a transfer to the Grafton Street store would interfere with her need to provide her mother with support.

·       Mr. Plassat replied to the Complainant attaching the Respondent’s “Dignity in the Workplace Policy” and asked if she wished to lodge a formal complaint. He also reminded her that he was available to meet with her that day to discuss the store transfer request.

·       On the 1st of October 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Plassat that she felt her complaint fell under dignity at work and bullying and asked for the Respondent to progress a formal complaint lodgement under this policy.

·       On the 4th of October 2023, Mr. Plassat emailed the Complainant to inform her that he had received her complaint and stated that he would initiate the investigation process under the relevant policy.

·       He noted that he would be in touch shortly and attached the terms of reference document pertaining to the investigation process.

·       Separately, on the 5th of October 2023, Ms. Menelaou emailed the Complainant to advise that she was expected to report to the Grafton Street store at 9.30am on the 7th of October 2023.

·       Ms. Menelaou also informed her that the Respondent now had a position available for her in the Jewellery department at Grafton Street and reminded her of the initial meeting on the 6th of September 2023, where she stated that she would be delighted to join the Jewellery Department at Grafton Street.

·       So as not to inconvenience the Complainant’s normal work pattern, she was rostered for 9.30am -6pm, which correlated to days she worked during her time at the Dundrum store.

·       In her correspondence regarding the Complainant’s station at the Grafton Street store, Ms. Menelaou reminded the Complainant that the instruction came from the Board of Directors due to a change in business/ retail needs and failure to follow reasonable instruction may result in disciplinary action.

·       On the 5th of October 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Plassat to address Ms. Menelaous email regarding the expectation for her to report to the Grafton Street Store on the 7th of October.

·       The Complainant claimed that this showcases further bullying behaviour by Ms. Menelaou and queried if the Board subscribes to such behaviour. 

·       On the 5th of October 2023, Mr. Plassat replied to the Complainant advising that all operational decisions are instructed by the Board and are based on the needs of the business.  Mr. Plassat requested to meet with the Complainant to address her concerns regarding the store transfer.

·       On the 6th of October 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Plassat requesting for the Respondent to set up mediation via the Workplace Relations Commission prior to engagement with the Respondent’s internal Dignity at Work process which the Complainant had formally lodged a complaint under.

·       On the 9th of October 2023, the Complainant presented sick certs covering the 9th – 23rd of October 2023.

·       On the 13th of October 2023, Ms. Carla Ryan Hr Manager, checked in with the Complainant via email and advised her of the Respondent’s Employee Assistance Programme. 

·       The Complainant submitted another certificate covering October 23rd -29th 2023.

·       On the 20th of October 2023, the Complainant contacted Dundrum Store Manager Mr. Paul Hogan requesting a rota for her a return to work.

·       On the 21st of October 2023, Mr. Hogan emailed the Complainant reclarifying that she had been requested to report to the Jewellery department at the Grafton Street Store, therefore the Human Resource Department had her new roster for her return to work.

·       The Complainant replied stating that she had asked the Respondent to facilitate mediation via the Workplace Relations Commission, and that Mr. Plassat and Ms. Menelaou should not engage with her any further in relation to any aspect of her employment. She also stated that she wished to return to the Dundrum Store as soon as possible.

·       On the 1st of November 2023, HR Manager, Ms. Ryan emailed the Complainant advising her of the relevant roster for the Grafton Street Store in anticipation for her return to work.

·       On the 1st of November 2023, the Complainant forwarded her roster to Mr. Andrews stating that she intended to return to the Dundrum Store on the 6th of November 2023. She further advised that she is her mother’s carer and never agreed to the store transfer.

·       On the 3rd of November 2023, Mr. Andrews emailed the Complainant to inform her that once she presents to the Grafton Street store, that he would complete a return-to-work interview to discuss her situation. He also provided details relating to the roster.

·       The Complainant replied to Mr. Andrews querying if he had actually taken time to read her email and informed him that she would report to the Dundrum Store not the Grafton Street Store on the 6th of November 2023.

·       On the 6th of November 2023, the Complainant presented an additional set of sick certs, covering the 6th of November 2023 to the 12th of November 2023

·       On the 7th of November 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Andrews seeking confirmation regarding her continued employment with the Respondent at the Dundrum store and informed him that she would take formal action if this was not the case.

·       On the 10th of November 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Andrews her resignation. She copied, Mr. Paul Hogan, the general manager of the Dundrum store email which all employees have access to, and the general Human Resources email.  

·       The Complainant informed Mr. Andrews and the rest of the Respondent’s staff, that she had contacted the Workplace Relations Commission, and had contractively dismissed herself.

·       On the 13th of November 2023, Mr. Andrews emailed the Complainant advising her that he was concerned with the issues raised in her last set of correspondence to the Respondent. He reminded the Complainant that Mr. Plassat had made himself available to meet with her to discuss her grievances, but she declined.

·       Mr. Andrews further noted that she had been out of work since the 9th of October 2023.

·       Mr. Andrews asked the Complainant to reconsider her resignation, to allow the Respondent to address her complaint and asked the Complainant to take time to reconsider her decision, up to the 17th of November 2023.

·       On the 13th of November 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Andrews stating her resignation was irrevocable.

·       On the 17th of November 2023, the Respondent received a letter from the Workplace Relations Commission containing a claim form lodged by the Complainant against the Respondent.

The Respondent’s Position Claim 2:

Section 8 of The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 (as amended) defines dismissal in relation to an employee as, inter alia:  

“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”  

In light of this definition, and established principles adopted by the Tribunal and the Courts, there exists a burden on the employee to demonstrate that:  

a.       The employee was entitled to terminate the contract of employment by virtue of a demonstrated breach of contract on the part of the employer, or  

b.       The employer had acted so unreasonably as to make the continuation of the employment intolerable, and it was reasonable for the employee to resign.  

It is only when either of the above criteria have been met that the employee is entitled to terminate the contract of employment.  It is the Respondent’s position that neither criterion has been met.  

 Contractual test  

The Respondent at all times operated within the terms of the contract of employment between the parties.  No contractual violation occurred.  The Respondent would draw on the explanation of the contractual test for constructive dismissal as set out in Conway v Ulster Bank, UD474/1981 to confirm this position, in that the Respondent did not violate any term of the contract or organisation policies, express or otherwise.  The Respondent’s actions were in no manner “a repudiation of the contract of employment” and did not demonstrate “that the Respondent no longer intended to be bound by the contract”.   

The Respondent fulfilled its contractual obligations, implied and otherwise, at all times. In light of this, it is the Respondent’s position that the termination of employment fails on a contractual test to be a constructive dismissal.  

 Reasonableness test  

In respect to reasonableness, it is the Respondent’s position that there exist two interwoven factors to be considered:  

(a) did the employer act unreasonably so as to render the relationship intolerable, and  

(b) did the employee act reasonably in resigning, particularly in respect of exercising internal grievance procedures.  

This is in accordance with established approaches as expressed by the Tribunal, for example in McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008, where the Tribunal stated:  

“The notion 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.”  

Reasonableness: the conduct of the employer  

It is the Respondent’s position that they acted reasonably and fairly at all times, in accordance with their policies, best practice, and appropriate conduct. 

The Complainant has outlined that she was subject to Bullying and Harassment by the Respondent. This was in no way the case. The Respondent requested for the Complainant to transfer to their Grafton Street Store, with a months’ notice, in line with her contract of employment as a result of business needs. Such requests are common practice within the Respondent’s business environment and the retail sector more generally.

The Respondent acted fair and reasonably when addressing the Complainant’s concerns regarding the store transfer. Once an opening became available for the Complainant to work within her desired Department of Jewellery the Respondent highlighted this to the Complainant, as she noted prior to the transfer that she would be more agreeable to the move if she could work in the Respondent’s Grafton Street Jewellery Department.

The Respondent also highlighted to the Complainant that they were open to reviewing her placement against business requirements within two months of the commencement of her position within the Grafton Street Store.

The Complainant raised additional concerns in relation to the transfer. Members of the Respondent’s senior management team, offered to meet with the Complainant to discuss her concerns relating to the transfer but failed to do.

The Complainant also raised concerns in relation to the behaviour of Ms. Menelaou regarding her facilitation of the transfer request and alleged that Ms. Menelaou engaged in passive aggressive bullying towards the Complainant.

The Respondent proactively responded to the Complainant’s allegations and put forward the Respondent’s Dignity at Work Policy to provide the Complainant with the opportunity to lodge a formal complaint.

The Complainant lodged a formal complaint under the policy and the Respondent drafted a terms of reference document before initiating investigation proceedings. However, the Complainant did not engage with the Respondent any further on this matter via their Dignity at Work process.

Reasonableness: Exhausting Procedures 

As referred to throughout this submission, the Respondent has a comprehensive grievance and Dignity at Work procedure in place, through which all grievances and Dignity at Work issues are fully and fairly processed, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000).   

It is the Respondent’s position that in advance of the Complainant furnishing her resignation, she should have utilised internal procedures to resolve any grievance, which she failed to do despite being given the opportunity from the Respondent.   

The Respondent maintains that the Complainant acted in a hasty and unreasonable manner by resigning from her position and not allowing the Respondent to adequately address her concerns. From the timeline set out in this submission, there is a pattern of the Respondent making proactive efforts to address concerns raised by the Complainant in line with internal procedures. The Complainant failed to provide the Respondent an opportunity to fully respond to concerns within her resignation letter, by failing to utilise any of the formal channels to seek to address any issues she may have had.  

As such, the Complainant did not act reasonably in resigning from her employment as she had not previously “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy his complaints” (Conway v Ulster Bank).  

The obligation to exhaust internal grievance procedures extends even in situations whereby there exists a purported breach of contract.  In Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, UD720/2006  the Complainant’s role was changed by the employer in a manner which was “not in keeping with the contract of employment”. The Complainant initiated the company’s internal grievance procedures but did not exhaust them and resigned without lodging a final appeal. The Tribunal found:   

“The claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case” and stated: “in constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”.  

The Tribunal thus found in that case that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed.  

Just as it is unacceptable in the case of a non-constructive dismissal for an employer to dismiss without recourse to fair and comprehensive procedures, so to it is insufficient for an employee to claim herself to have been constructively dismissed without utilising and exhausting grievance procedures. It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant fails to establish the burden of proof that her actions were reasonable.  As inTravers v MBNA, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s failure to utilise/exhaust internal grievance procedures is detrimental to her claim.  

At this juncture, the Respondent wishes to reference Fitzsimons v Mount Carmel Hospital, UD855/2007. In that case, in the Complainant’s letter of resignation a complaint was raised against the Complainant’s manager.  The Respondent encouraged the Claimant to reconsider her resignation and offered the Complainant their dignity at work and grievance policy to lodge issues to pertaining to the Complainant resignation. The Complainant rejected this offer.  The Tribunal stated:  

“It is regrettable that this final step [of acceptance of the return-to-work offer] was not taken and the Tribunal finds it was unreasonable for the Applicant not to have seen this process through. The Employment Appeals Tribunal’s primary function is to ensure that internal workplace procedures are fairly applied to individual employees and there is an onus on employees to engage fully in these procedures where a clear effort is being made to overcome past difficulties.”  

By virtue of this, the Complainant’s resignation does not fulfil the test of reasonableness and thus cannot be determined to be a constructive dismissal.  

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is the Respondent’s position that it in no way repudiated the contract of employment but rather, always maintained the employment relationship within the parameters of that contractual relationship.  Furthermore, it is the Respondent’s position that its interactions with the Complainant were always reasonable, and that, conversely, the Complainant’s action in failing to utilise and exhaust the internal grievance procedures amounted to unreasonableness on her part.  Considering all the above, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise, from her employment.    

The Respondent respectfully requests the Adjudication Officer to reject the Complainant’s claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015 and to find in favour of the Respondent.

The Adjudication Officer is respectfully requested to consider the Respondent’s arguments as presented in this submission and provided in the evidence adduced in the attendant booklet, in relation to all claims, together with any oral evidence provided at the hearing of the matter and to find in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent reserves the right to adduce any further evidence at the hearing.  

The representative for the Respondent has very clearly concluded:

“it is the Respondent’s position that it in no way repudiated the contract of employment but rather, always maintained the employment relationship within the parameters of that contractual relationship.  Furthermore, it is the Respondent’s position that its interactions with the Complainant were always reasonable, and that, conversely, the Complainant’s action in failing to utilise and exhaust the internal grievance procedures amounted to unreasonableness on her part.  Considering all the above, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise, from her employment”.    

There is something of a mirror image between ordinary dismissal and constructive dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so too an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance. The duty is an imperative almost always in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist, they should be followed: Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd (UD 474/1981). In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints”. Where there are no formal procedures, advice should be taken as to the most appropriate way of presenting a complaint within the employment. At the very least an employee should communicate his or her grievance before resigning.

In the instant case I note that the Complainant, by email dated 27th September 2023 (8.17am), stated quite clearly “I wish to complain formally regarding Renee Menelaou engagement with me. I experienced it as careless, disrespectful and intimidating”. In reply, again by email, dated the same day at 7.06pm Mr Séverin Plassat replied “Please find attached a copy of the Weir and Sons grievance procedure policy, please advise me if you wish to lodge a formal complaint”. On 1st October 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr Plassat that she felt her grievance fell under dignity at work and bullying and asked for the Respondent to progress a formal complaint. On 4th October Mr Plassat emailed the Complainant to inform her that he had received her complaint and stated that he would initiate the investigation process under the relevant policy. He noted that he would be in touch shortly and attached the terms of reference document pertaining to the investigation process.

The Complainant commenced a period of sick leave on 9th October 2023. During this period of sick leave there were further emails exchanged between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant resigned from her position on 10th November 2023.

Mr. Andrews (Managing Director) asked the Complainant to reconsider her resignation, to allow the Respondent to address her complaint and asked the Complainant to take time to reconsider her decision, up to the 17th of November 2023.

On the 13th of November 2023, the Complainant emailed Mr. Andrews stating her resignation was irrevocable.

In conclusion I find that the resignation on 10th November 2023 proves fatal to the complaint presented under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and must therefore find that the complaint as presented is not well founded.

In conclusion I find that the resignation on 10th November 2023 proves fatal to the complaint presented under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and must therefore find that the complaint as presented is not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act; Constructive Dismissal.