ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052371

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Louise Cooney	Albeech Ltd

Representatives

The claimant represented herself

The respondent represented himself

Complaint(s):

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-00064170-001	19/06/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/08/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The claimant was employed as a General Operative with the respondent from the 26th.Sept. 2022 to the 12th.April 2024 when she claimed she was unfairly dismissed.The respondent denied the claimant was dismissed and asserted that the matter was taken out of their hands when the claimant in correspondence to Ms.CF offered to leave and the company accepted it.

Summary of Complainant’s Case and Pertinent Evidence of Claimant:

The claimant submitted that the company was a small company owned by 2 brothers and that Ms.CF was in a long term relationship with the owner Mr.LT .Ms.CF worked in the hen house with the claimant and she submitted that initially relations between herself and Ms.CF were fine but believed that as time passed Ms.CF became resentful of her. The claimant said that initially the only difference between her and Ms.CF was that Ms.CF helped with the wages and did the rota up as she was Mr.LT’s partner. The claimant said Ms.CF treated her differently to the other workers and made her feel uncomfortable at work. She said she was treated differently for example when she was looking for time off but the claimant did not want to complain because she was her bosses partner and she was concerned it might affect her ongoing employment. The claimant said she was unaware the 2 brothers were aware of the tension between her and Ms.CF

The claimant went on to describe conflict that had arisen when she applied for time off for her son’s confirmation “ until after I was sacked because they never mentioned it at any stage before this”.The claimant said Ms.CF texted back to say

“will sort something but not to book holidays during school term as it puts too much pressure on them “ – because their niece and nephew work part time during weekends and school holidays. The claimant responded as follows “ why she always turns everything around on me as if I do something wrong” – to which Ms.CF replied we need to clear the air if we are to continue to work together”. The claimant responded –“I’m happy enough working away .I’ve no issues .I’ve been working away with her attitude this last year or more .I’m not everyone’s cup of tea and that’s fine by me but I am a good worker .So I am happy to carry on as normal but if you don’t want me to work there just give me a letter for social and find someone else. All I want is to be treated like everyone else , a little bit of respect”.

The claimant said she sent the letter to her colleague Ms.CF as she was not her boss. The following day she received a letter from Mr.LT to the effect stating “ We read the messages between yourself and C. It has been obvious all along that there was a bit of heat between you both and we probably hoped you would work it out.As you said you are a good worker but C plays a very important role in the packing room with looking after the workers and the rota. She takes a lot of pressure off us. There’s not too many working there so it is important that everyone gets on with her. With this in mind we think it best to take you up on your offer regarding your last text. We’ll pay you for tomorrow plus any holidays plus 2 weeks. We have no problem giving you any reference or whatever you need. We want to wish you well”.

The claimant submitted that she was shocked and felt the least she deserved was a meeting to try and resolve the matter. The following day Ms.CF emailed her with a letter for social welfare and a breakdown of 4 weeks payment. The letter for Social Welfare stated

“ Due to the decrease in production of eggs at our farm we are no longer able to offer Ms.LC any hours of work ..Ms.LC has ceased employment with Albeech Ltd.as of the 12th.April 2024”.It was submitted that the company had hired another person within a week.

The claimant wrote to the respondent seeking clarity on their decision , what procedures were followed and if she had been dismissed. A short meeting between the parties ensued .The meeting was amicable and the claimant enquired “ why I am being punished because she did not want to work with me “ and they replied because she is more important. They were unable to clarify what procedures were followed. In the course of the meeting , the claimant submitted that the employers confirmed her work was always of a high standard. The claimant in a follow up letter to the respondent said she sent the letter to Ms.CF as another employee and was not sent to the employer and accordingly should not have been taken as an offer of her wanting to leave because she clearly stated twice in the same message she was happy to work away. She said she was sorry it had come to this. The employer did not respond .In an email dated the 1st.May the claimant offered another meeting and signalled that she may be making an official complaint to the WRC.When the claimant sought a written statement from the employer of the reason for her dismissal , the employer replied

“.. no letter is required as you were not dismissed , you offered to leave and under the circumstances we thought this was the best outcome. Please feel free to contact the WRC…”.

The claimant replied stating that she was dismissed , that she never offered to leave and it was Ms.CF’s choice not to work with her as had been outlined at the meeting. She pointed out that she also had a letter from them for Social Welfare stating that due to decrease production of eggs , they could no longer offer her hours which she submitted meant that she was dismissed and did not leave of her own accord. She said the employer than recruited someone to do the job she had been dismissed from.

The claimant said she had sought a letter of clarity on 3 occasions and had been refused She said there had been no written or verbal warnings issued and that she was sacked because Ms.CF did not like her and did not want to work with her .”I never raised my grievance with Ms.CF to my employers because she is going out with a company director and I was afraid it would interfere with my employment and they proved me right , nepotism at its finest”.

The claimant said the letter was written in the heat of the moment and submitted that she was never issued with a contract of employment and there were no policies or procedures in place. The claimant reiterated that she was unaware that Ms.CF was in a supervisory position.

The claimant asserted that no procedures were followed, she was left without a job and had sought an explanation for her dismissal on 3 occasions.She insisted that she was unaware the Ms.CF was her supervisor.The claimant said she was currently on job seekers allowance and planned to go to college in September. The claimant said that she should have been told if she made Ms.CF feel as described and she vehemently rejected that she was a bully under any circumstances.

Under cross examination , the claimant was questioned on her behaviour towards Ms.CF – she said she was never informed that Ms.CF was her supervisor and she could not understand why Mr.LT did not raise the matter with her and tell her of the accusations that had been made against her by Ms.CF.

Summary of Respondent’s Case and Pertinent Evidence of Respondent’s Witnesses

MsC.F gave evidence of the background to the Company and advised that she was the long term partner of Mr.LT (co- owner/director).The claimant advised that she took up the role of Supervisor of the packing room and was in charge of the day to day running of the room , organising rotas and doing up wages. She asserted that she was the person everyone went to with enquiries about work , days off, wages etc. She described the claimant as a good worker but submitted that she became difficult to work with in Mid Sept 2022 – pointing out mistakes .The witness said she felt belittled and intimidated by the claimant and approached Mr.LT about her difficulties with the claimant and he asked her to try and continue to work with her as they needed her (the witness) in that role. When she approached Mr.LT in December , he pleaded with her to continue – she raised the matter wit him on several occasions in 2023.She felt the claimant was trying to push her out. She tried to avoid her by rostering her for days different to herself.

The witness complained about an incident with the claimant regarding holidays resulting in the witness and her colleague having to work 15 days in a row. The witness described an incident about sick days and said that the 5 week break when production ceased in Sept. 2023 was a welcome one. She described the symptoms of anxiety that resurfaced when she had to return to work.

At the start of 2024 , the witness began coming in early and leaving early to minimise her contact with the claimant. She recounted a further incident with the claimant and asked the claimant to book her holidays during school holidays when they could secure cover for the packing room. The witness quoted the ensuing exchanges between herself and the claimant and asserted that the correspondence indicated that the claimant had no respect for her or her position and did not want to work things out between them.

She met with her partner and his brother( co-owner/director) the following day and advised them that she could no longer work with the claimant – which they accepted.

The witness disputed the claimant’s assertion that there was no difference between their roles and asserted that the claimant had no idea of the additional work she undertook over and above basic duties. She asserted she never once refused time off to the claimant. It was submitted that the claimant viewed her as being in a supervisory role from the outset. She rejected the allegation of nepotism and referenced the 18 months she had to work with the claimant with a great deal of stress and anxiety. The witness said that she never refused time off to the claimant – she asserted the claimant got very unmannerly and she could not deal with her anymore. The witness said the claimant did not say anything to her face.The witness said when she spoke to the directors , she offered to step aside and they replied that she – the claimant – had offered to go

In his evidence Mr.LT said that he and his brother decided they needed assistance with the day to day running of the packing room – they both had farms and this supervisory work was taking up too much of their time.Ms.CF took on the role and took the pressure off them. He said when he and his brother worked with the claimant , she worked well and was respectful towards them. They began to notice Ms.CF being on her own in the canteen while the other workers sat in the car and they went to the canteen when Ms.CF was off. He accepted this was not an ideal situation and Ms.CF seemed to be dealing with the problem in her own way.

He submitted that he and his brother were disappointed when they read the text from the claimant and deduced that it was clear the relationship had broken down and that the claimant had no respect for Ms.CF. He said they felt the offer to leave by the claimant was the best outcome. Since then the atmosphere had improved and now everyone went to the canteen together .

In his direct evidence the witness said that they had no issue with the claimant but it was clear Ms.CF could not work with her and that the claimant had been disrespectful towards her. The witness accepted there were no policies in place. He did not accept the claimant had been dismissed – he said she offered to leave and we accepted that – for them to continue they needed Ms.CF. They discussed the matter with Ms.CF but did not discuss it with the claimant. He submitted the options were taken out of their hands – the claimant offered to leave and they accepted that. He confirmed the employer did not consider alternatives to ending the claimant’s job. Under cross examination the witness was asked why – the claimant – had not been invited to a meeting to discuss the matter.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have reviewed the evidence presented by the parties and noted the submissions made .It is not disputed that there were no contracts or policies in place in the employment and it appears that the fractured relationship between the claimant and her supervisor escalated to a stage where their differences became irreconcilable. Primary responsibility for the conflict rests with the respondent who had no policy in place to manage conflict in the workplace and who could have intervened earlier when the supervisor complained about her environment at work.The dispute could potentially have been resolved informally at this stage .The Directors chose to turn a blind eye and this was unfair to the claimant and indeed Ms.CF .Matters were compounded by the respondent’s failure to advise the workers and the claimant of Ms.CF’s position as line manager.

I accept the claimant’s evidence that her letter to Ms.CF was written in the heat of the moment.

Legal precedents caution against heat of the moment resignations. Best practise provides that an employee is allowed to come back to at least discuss the case when tempers are cooled.

I consider the provisions of Labour Court Decision EED044 Shinkwin & Donna Millett to be particularly instructive in relation to the matters in dispute in the instant case .

In Shinkwin the Labour Court referenced an extract from Dr.Mary Redmond in her book Dismissal Law in Ireland as follows :

In her book Dismissal Law in Ireland, Dr Mary Redmond wrote as follows at paragraph [21.24]: -

“When unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to an employer, and are so understood by the employer, generally it is safe to conclude that the employee has resigned. However, context is everything. A resignation should not be taken at face value where in the circumstances, there were heated exchanges or where the employee was unwell at the time. The intellectual make up of the employee may also be relevant.”

The Court found that that there are occasions in which an apparently unconditional and unambiguous resignation may be vitiated by the circumstances in which it is proffered. InKwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Linehan [1992] IRLR 156, the following passage appears at paragraph 31:-

“If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment, personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (being jostled into a decision) and indeed the intellectual makeup of the individual may be relevant (see Barclay [1983] IRLR 313). These we refer to as “special circumstances”. Where special circumstances arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employers risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the “special circumstances” the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively.”

In Martin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd [1983] IRLR 48the following finding of the EAT is recited in the headnote:-

“It is a matter of plain common sense, vital to industrial relations, that either an employer or an employee, should be given an opportunity of recanting from words spoken in the heat of the moment. It could not be accepted, as argued by the appellant, that once clear and unambiguous words are used the contract irreversibly comes to an end so that second thoughts make no difference”.

The Court went on to reference “ persuasive authorities on the law applicable to cases such as this.They also contain sound principles of good employment practise. An employee may make a decision which is not fully informed because they are not in a position to fully evaluate their options or they may act on a misinterpretation of something which is said or done . Where the situation is still retrievable it would be unreasonable for an employee to be denied an opportunity to recant once the true position becomes clear”.

The Court refenced approaches by the EAT in this jurisdiction in claims of unfair dismissal.” InKeane v Western Health Board (UD 940/1988)the claimant was aggrieved at the manner in which she was treated by a more senior employee with whom she was assigned to work. She was unaware of the existence of a procedure by which she could have processed her grievance. The claimant believed that the difficulties and stress which she was experiencing presented her with no alternative but to resign. When she became aware of other industrial relations options she sought to withdraw her resignation.

The Tribunal took the view that the claimant's resignation, viewed against the background in which it was made, could not be considered a fully informed decision or notice by her to terminate her employment. They were of the opinion that the resignation was tainted by reason of the confused state of the claimant’s mind at the time the resignation was proffered. The Tribunal concluded that in the circumstances of the case a reasonable employer would have allowed the claimant to revoke her notice and the respondent’s refusal to consider doing so amounted to a dismissal.

On the basis of these authorities, it seems clear that an employee may withdraw a notice of resignation where special circumstances exist relating to the context in which the decision to resign was taken. The resignation must be withdrawn within a reasonable time which will probably be quite short. The test of reasonableness is an objective one decided in the circumstances of the case (Kwik-Fit (GB) v Linehan). It is also clear from the authorities that where an employee freely and deliberately decides to resign and subsequently changes his or her mind, the employer is under no obligation to accede to an offer to withdraw the resignation or to even to consider such an offer”.

In the instant case the claimant set out the backdrop to her decision to write to Ms.CF in April 2024 regarding time off for her son’s confirmation. The claimant asserts that she wrote this to Ms.CF as a colleague as she was not her boss. It is difficult to understand how the claimant was unaware of Ms.CF’s status as a line manager – that notwithstanding the employer did not refute the claimant’s assertion that she was never informed that Ms.CF was her line manager .It is not disputed that there was no Dignity at Work Policy in place or any other policies for that matter. The claimant was entitled to be informed of the allegations being made against her by Ms.CF and was entitled to an opportunity to respond and challenge any such allegations. In light of the absence of any policies or procedures being in place and given the employer’s confirmation that the claimant was a good worker , I consider the employer’s failure to allow the claimant to withdraw her text to Ms.CF to be unfair and unreasonable and consequently I uphold the complaint of unfair dismissal.I accept however that the claimant contributed significantly to her own dismissal by texting Ms.CF “ …if you don’t want me to work there just give me a letter for social and find someone else”.I am taking this into account in the compensation to be awarded .

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I uphold the complaint of unfair dismissal and require the respondent to pay the claimant €2,660.70 compensation.

Dated: 23-09-2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Key Words: