ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Correction Order issued pursuant to Section 39 of the
Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007038
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Accounts Manager | An ICT Company |
Representatives | Matthew Holmes B.L. instructed by Cullen & Co., Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00009627-001 | 09/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00009627-002 | 09/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00009627-003 | 09/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints
Background:
The complainant had been employed as an Accounts Manager between February 9th, 2009 and the date of her resignation on September 9th 2016. She was paid €2097 per month. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has made three complaints. Then main complaint is that she was unfairly, constructively dismissed. She also complains that she is owed wages in the amount of €1,197, 67 and holiday pay in the amount of 128.81. Finally, she says that she was not given a statement of her terms of employment as required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The complainant says there were a series of incidents involving one of two company directors (referred to as A and B) which made it initially difficult and ultimately impossible for her to work with him. This sequence of events started in December 2015 when Director A countermanded an instruction given to the complainant by the other Director in the company (his brother, B) and A then sent her an abrupt email and subsequently shouted at her arising from a minor fault with a coffee machine. The complainant raised her concerns with that Director B who told her to report to him (B) from then on and to raise any issues with him about A’s conduct. On September 9th, 2016 the complainant recruited an accounts assistant on Director B’s request, following which A made sarcastic comments about whether the complainant was leaving the company, and about what she would now be doing which upset her. Later that month, on September 26th, there was a more serious incident when Director A shouted and used foul language in relation to an initiative of his fellow Director which the complainant explained to him. Three days later Director B approached the complainant having had a report of the shouting incident. She says he agreed with her that the behaviour was unacceptable and that he would talk to An hour after this A arrived into the office and he again engaged in shouting at the complainant arising from a simple request related to the printing of invoices. At this, the complainant approached B in his office and broke down. B agreed that the behaviour was unacceptable and asked if she wanted to go home. Director A ‘barged’ into the office, slamming the door behind him and demanding to know what was wrong with the complainant, and did so repeatedly, continuing to shout at her and assert that he was her boss. The complainant indicated her intention to resign and on hearing of this A returned to her office shouting ‘get your stuff’ repeatedly in the presence of her co-workers. He shouted at one of those co-workers to close down the complainant’s workstation. Some days later (October 4th) A contacted the complainant saying that he would not accept her resignation, that he would change and would no longer be working in close proximity to her. She told B about this exchange, saying that she was in fear of A repeating this conduct. B agreed with her and apologised, thanking for her work with the company. He agreed with her decision to resign. On October 6th A contacted the complainant asking her to put her resignation in writing and thanking her for her work. She did so. Director A wrote to her again on October 14th asking her to reconsider as she had resigned ‘in the heat of the moment’ and inviting her to process her grievance through the company’s grievance procedure; a copy of which he enclosed. Following correspondence from the complainant’s solicitors A wrote again on October 25th along similar lines. The complainant says that these events represent severe, unwarranted and unacceptable abuse, justifying her resignation from the respondent. They relied on Connolly v Aldi [2011] JIEC 2201, which addressed the failure to avail of the grievance procedure and despite that held that a constructive dismissal had taken place. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint is one of constructive dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act and the resulting jurisprudence have set a high bar in relation to what will justify the termination of any contract of employment. It is, after all, a breach of a legally binding contract. In the case of an employer wishing to terminate an employee’s contract, there must be cause, a fair process must have been followed and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable sanctions in relation to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings. The most common complaint under the Act is when an employer has terminated the employment and these are then the tests as to whether the dismissal has been a fair one. In general, it is relatively easy for an employee to terminate their employment by simply giving notice of their intention to do so and then resigning and in most, if not all cases an action for breach of contract is unlikely to arise. When an employee terminates the contract of employment but then makes a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal that is a different matter. In ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’ the late Dr Mary Redmond has said (at p340 There is something of a mirror image between constructive dismissal and ordinary dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so true an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance, The duty is an imperative in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist, they should be followed: Conway v Ulster bank Limited. In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning and without first having ‘substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints The Supreme Court has said that; ‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’ Per Finnegan J in Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61 In such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, this reference to the employer’s conduct is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the complainant’s resignation and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment. In relation to the employee’s behaviour this normally refers to the efforts that a complainant made to bring the matter to the employer’s attention and to have it remedied by means of the grievance machinery. In this case the main sequence of events took place in a relatively short period in September 2016. There had been a previous incidence of unacceptable behaviour by Director A in December 2015 but while it was similar in its nature to the later events no difficulty appears to have arisen in the intervening nine months. The earlier incident is nonetheless significant in that it was brought to the attention of Director B who regarded it as sufficiently serious to advise the complainant to work with him (i.e. B) and direct any issues to him. It was also similar in nature to the September 2016 incidents. As noted the burden of proof falling on a complainant is a high one. The law does not give a right to an employee to quit their employment and claim constructive dismissal on the basis of mild provocation, or failure by an employer to respond to request for changes which lie in the mid-range of workplace interactions, and whose processing is a matter for the normal workplace procedures for processing them. Likewise, isolated instances of behaviour which may be unacceptable and a breach of the employee’s right to dignity at work are to be dealt with as part of the internal provisions for doing so. There are several references in the case law above and in the quotation from Dr. Redmond which place heavy emphasis on the need to avail of the internal grievance procedure to seek to resolve disputes. I this case Director A sought to persuade the complainant to avail of this option. However, he only did so some weeks after she had announced her decision to leave. Further, the emphasis placed on the need to exhaust internal procedures is to give the employer the opportunity to remedy the alleged unacceptable conduct as it will often be possible to do so. It is also to reinforce the fact that the bar in constructive dismissal is a high one. However, in considering the words of the Supreme Court this cannot be decided on a very technical basis. ‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’ On one extreme picture a person being subjected to conduct of a relatively trivial nature who peremptorily quits her employment without any resort to an internal procedure. This clearly falls outside all of the jurisprudence. But the Supreme Court dicta oblige me to look at the complainant’s case on its merits and by reference to the twin criteria it has set down; the conduct complained of and its impact on the employee. The respondent did not attend the hearing and therefore the complainant’s evidence was uncontested. However, she was a credible witness and her further evidence of the reaction of Director B tends to corroborate it. A possible weakness in the complainant’s case is the limited number of incidences of the conduct complained of. There are four episodes in September to be considered. The first related to the recruitment of the accounts assistant in respect of which Director A made sarcastic comments and questioned the complainant’s continued employment in the company. While disrespectful, this was, relative to what followed somewhat less serious. The second related to the change in the email signature. The third related to the inquiry about printing off invoices. The fourth related to A’s conduct when it became clear that the complainant intended to resign. In respect of these final three episodes while they are few in number the conduct was on the extreme end of the range of unacceptable workplace conduct. Shouting at a worker especially in respect of trivial matters or issues for which she has had no responsibility, slamming doors, bursting into offices etc is simply not permissible in the workplace. It is particularly lacking in insight in that it added fuel to a fire that was already burning. Whatever chance the directors had of assuaging the complainant’s sense of grievance was well and truly destroyed by the behaviour of A in the course of the meeting between the complainant and B about her resignation. The perpetrator was a Director of the company. Nine months before the key events leading to her resignation Director B had acknowledged a problem, although it is not clear whether he did anything about it. (There was some suggestion in the criticism by Director A of the changes initiated by Director B that despite his best intentions he may not have been able to do anything about it.) It is clear that Director A did nothing to reassure the complainant in the days after the key events. Therefore, while there are but four key events it is their gravity that is decisive and their impact on the employee. There is the related matter of whether she could have continued to work in that environment given what had happened. Turning then to the second test; the impact on the employee. I find that its effect on the employee, judged ‘objectively, reasonably and sensibly’ is such that the employee could not be expected to put up with it. I also factor in the seniority of the perpetrator. There was some evidence that She met the obligation to raise the matter with the respondent (in the form of Director B) in December 2015 and following the September 26th incident. In the course of that second discussion Director A repeated the very conduct of which the complainant was complaining in the course of her discussion with Director B. To expect the complainant to calmly step back and process a grievance in such circumstances would be somewhat unreasonable on these facts. She did enough to draw attention to the problem to require action from the respondent, which should have been immediate and decisive. Her failure to specifically avail of the formal procedures does not on these particular facts breach the general requirement to do so set out in the authorities above. It is clear from the Supreme court dicta that this is not an absolute requirement to be applied regardless of the facts of a particular case. The complainant did take sufficient steps in raising the matter with Director B to meet this requirement. It is relatively easy to distinguish this case from the following, previously decided by the EAT. In Patricia Barry-Relph v HSE t/a HSE North West. [2016] 27 E.L.R 268 ‘The Tribunal finds that the claimant do not give her employer an opportunity to deal with her complaints. The tribunal further notes that the claimant resigned on obtaining alternative employment in January 2014. Her resignation was tendered in circumstances where she failed to any of the several avenues open to her. And in Zabiello v Ashgrove Facility Management Ltd UD1106/2008 the Tribunal stated; For a claim of constructive dismissal to succeed the claimant needs to satisfy the tribunal that her working conditions were such that she had no choice but to resign. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant had difficulties with her line manager. However for a period of six months she did not attempt to resolve the issue. In Kirwan v Primark (UD 270/2003) the EAT held noted that the claimant said that she was only going through the motions and therefore there was not a genuine attempt to utilise the grievance procedures and her case failed. The clear test arising from these cases is that a complainant must demonstrate attempts to resolve the matter at the level of the workplace. In this case the complainant meets that test. She meets all the tests to support her complaint of constructive dismissal and her case succeeds. Evidence was given of the complainant’s efforts to mitigate her losses. I also accept her evidence in respect of the other complaints in respect of wages owed, annual leave and make my awards under the Payment of Wages Act and Terms of Employment (Information) Act below. The awards are based on or take into account her monthly salary of €2,097.00. |
Decision:
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 all the complaints and award as follows. In respect of CA-00009627-001 I award the complainant €1,197.67 in respect of wages and €128.81 in respect of holiday pay. In respect of CA-00009627-002 I award the complainant €1,527 being three weeks’ wages. In respect of CA-00009627-003 I award the complainant €15,000, in all cases subject to normal statutory deductions. |
Dated: 5th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal, bullying. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007038
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Accounts Manager | An ICT Company |
Representatives | Matthew Holmes B.L. instructed by Cullen & Co., Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00009627-001 | 09/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00009627-002 | 09/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00009627-003 | 09/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints
Background:
The complainant had been employed as an Accounts Manager between February 9th 2009 and the date of her resignation on September 9th 2016. She was paid €2097 per month. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has made three complaints. Then main complaint is that she was unfairly, constructively dismissed. She also complains that she is owed wages in the amount of €1,197, 67 and holiday pay in the amount of 128.81. Finally, she says that she was not given a statement of her terms of employment as required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The complainant says there were a series of incidents involving one of two company directors (referred to as A and B) which made it initially difficult and ultimately impossible for her to work with him. This sequence of events started in December 2015 when Director A countermanded an instruction given to the complainant by the other Director in the company (his brother, B) and A then sent her an abrupt email and subsequently shouted at her arising from a minor fault with a coffee machine. The complainant raised her concerns with that Director B who told her to report to him (B) from then on and to raise any issues with him about A’s conduct. On September 9th 2016 the complainant recruited an accounts assistant on Director B’s request, following which A made sarcastic comments about whether the complainant was leaving the company, and about what she would now be doing which upset her. Later that month, on September 26th, there was a more serious incident when Director A shouted and used foul language in relation to an initiative of his fellow Director which the complainant explained to him. Three days later Director B approached the complainant having had a report of the shouting incident. She says he agreed with her that the behaviour was unacceptable and that he would talk to An hour after this A arrived into the office and he again engaged in shouting at the complainant arising from a simple request related to the printing of invoices. At this, the complainant approached B in his office and broke down. B agreed that the behaviour was unacceptable and asked if she wanted to go home. Director A ‘barged’ into the office, slamming the door behind him and demanding to know what was wrong with the complainant, and did so repeatedly, continuing to shout at her and assert that he was her boss. The complainant indicated her intention to resign and on hearing of this A returned to her office shouting ‘get your stuff’ repeatedly in the presence of her co-workers. He shouted at one of those co-workers to close down the complainant’s workstation. Some days later (October 4th) A contacted the complainant saying that he would not accept her resignation, that he would change and would no longer be working in close proximity to her. She told B about this exchange, saying that she was in fear of A repeating this conduct. B agreed with her and apologised, thanking for her work with the company. He agreed with her decision to resign. On October 6th A contacted the complainant asking her to put her resignation in writing and thanking her for her work. She did so. Director A wrote to her again on October 14th asking her to reconsider as she had resigned ‘in the heat of the moment’ and inviting her to process her grievance through the company’s grievance procedure; a copy of which he enclosed. Following correspondence from the complainant’s solicitors A wrote again on October 25th along similar lines. The complainant says that these events represent severe, unwarranted and unacceptable abuse, justifying her resignation from the respondent. They relied on Connolly v Aldi [2011] JIEC 2201, which addressed the failure to avail of the grievance procedure and despite that held that a constructive dismissal had taken place. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint is one of constructive dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act and the resulting jurisprudence have set a high bar in relation to what will justify the termination of any contract of employment. It is, after all, a breach of a legally binding contract. In the case of an employer wishing to terminate an employee’s contract, there must be cause, a fair process must have been followed and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable sanctions in relation to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings. The most common complaint under the Act is when an employer has terminated the employment and these are then the tests as to whether the dismissal has been a fair one. In general, it is relatively easy for an employee to terminate their employment by simply giving notice of their intention to do so and then resigning and in most, if not all cases an action for breach of contract is unlikely to arise. When an employee terminates the contract of employment but then makes a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal that is a different matter. In ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’ the late Dr Mary Redmond has said (at p340 There is something of a mirror image between constructive dismissal and ordinary dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so true an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance, The duty is an imperative in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist they should be followed: Conway v Ulster bank Limited. In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning and without first having ‘substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints The Supreme Court has said that; ‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’ Per Finnegan J in Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61 In such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, this reference to the employer’s conduct is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the complainant’s resignation and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment. In relation to the employee’s behaviour this normally refers to the efforts that a complainant made to bring the matter to the employer’s attention and to have it remedied by means of the grievance machinery. In this case the main sequence of events took place in a relatively short period in September 2016. There had been a previous incidence of unacceptable behaviour by Director A in December 2015 but while it was similar in its nature to the later events no difficulty appears to have arisen in the intervening nine months. The earlier incident is nonetheless significant in that it was brought to the attention of Director B who regarded it as sufficiently serious to advise the complainant to work with him (i.e. B) and direct any issues to him. It was also similar in nature to the September 2016 incidents. As noted the burden of proof falling on a complainant is a high one. The law does not give a right to an employee to quit their employment and claim constructive dismissal on the basis of mild provocation, or failure by an employer to respond to request for changes which lie in the mid range of workplace interactions, and whose processing is a matter for the normal workplace procedures for processing them. Likewise, isolated instances of behaviour which may be unacceptable and a breach of the employee’s right to dignity at work are to be dealt with as part of the internal provisions for doing so. There are several references in the case law above and in the quotation from Dr. Redmond which place heavy emphasis on the need to avail of the internal grievance procedure to seek to resolve disputes. I this case Director A sought to persuade the complainant to avail of this option. However, he only did so some weeks after she had announced her decision to leave. Further, the emphasis placed on the need to exhaust internal procedures is to give the employer the opportunity to remedy the alleged unacceptable conduct as it will often be possible to do so. It is also to reinforce the fact that the bar in constructive dismissal is a high one. However, in considering the words of the Supreme Court this cannot be decided on a very technical basis. ‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’ On one extreme picture a person being subjected to conduct of a relatively trivial nature who peremptorily quits her employment without any resort to an internal procedure. This clearly falls outside all of the jurisprudence. But the Supreme Court dicta oblige me to look at the complainant’s case on its merits and by reference to the twin criteria it has set down; the conduct complained of and its impact on the employee. The respondent did not attend the hearing and therefore the complainant’s evidence was uncontested. However, she was a credible witness and her further evidence of the reaction of Director B tends to corroborate it. A possible weakness in the complainant’s case is the limited number of incidences of the conduct complained of. There are four episodes in September to be considered. The first related to the recruitment of the accounts assistant in respect of which Director A made sarcastic comments and questioned the complainant’s continued employment in the company. While disrespectful, this was, relative to what followed somewhat less serious. The second related to the change in the email signature. The third related to the inquiry about printing off invoices. The fourth related to A’s conduct when it became clear that the complainant intended to resign. In respect of these final three episodes while they are few in number the conduct was on the extreme end of the range of unacceptable workplace conduct. Shouting at a worker especially in respect of trivial matters or issues for which she has had no responsibility, slamming doors, bursting into offices etc is simply not permissible in the workplace. It is particularly lacking in insight in that it added fuel to a fire that was already burning. Whatever chance the directors had of assuaging the complainant’s sense of grievance was well and truly destroyed by the behaviour of A in the course of the meeting between the complainant and B about her resignation. The perpetrator was a Director of the company. Nine months before the key events leading to her resignation Director B had acknowledged a problem, although it is not clear whether he did anything about it. (There was some suggestion in the criticism by Director A of the changes initiated by Director B that despite his best intentions he may not have been able to do anything about it.) It is clear that Director A did nothing to reassure the complainant in the days after the key events. Therefore, while there are but four key events it is their gravity that is decisive and their impact on the employee. There is the related matter of whether she could have continued to work in that environment given what had happened. Turning then to the second test; the impact on the employee. I find that its effect on the employee, judged ‘objectively, reasonably and sensibly’ is such that the employee could not be expected to put up with it. I also factor in the seniority of the perpetrator. There was some evidence that She met the obligation to raise the matter with the respondent (in the form of Director B) in December 2015 and following the September 26th incident. In the course of that second discussion Director A repeated the very conduct of which the complainant was complaining in the course of her discussion with Director B. To expect the complainant to calmly step back and process a grievance in such circumstances would be somewhat unreasonable on these facts. She did enough to draw attention to the problem to require action from the respondent, which should have been immediate and decisive. Her failure to specifically avail of the formal procedures does not on these particular facts breach the general requirement to do so set out in the authorities above. It is clear from the Supreme court dicta that this is not an absolute requirement to be applied regardless of the facts of a particular case. The complainant did take sufficient steps in raising the matter with Director B to meet this requirement. It is relatively easy to distinguish this case from the following, previously decided by the EAT. In Patricia Barry-Relph v HSE t/a HSE North West. [2016] 27 E.L.R 268 ‘The Tribunal finds that the claimant do not give her employer an opportunity to deal with her complaints. The tribunal further notes that the claimant resigned on obtaining alternative employment in January 2014. Her resignation was tendered in circumstances where she failed to any of the several avenues open to her. And in Zabiello v Ashgrove Facility Management Ltd UD1106/2008 the Tribunal stated; For a claim of constructive dismissal to succeed the claimant needs to satisfy the tribunal that her working conditions were such that she had no choice but to resign. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant had difficulties with her line manager. However for a period of six months she did not attempt to resolve the issue. In Kirwan v Primark (UD 270/2003) the EAT held noted that the claimant said that she was only going through the motions and therefore there was not a genuine attempt to utilise the grievance procedures and her case failed. The clear test arising from these cases is that a complainant must demonstrate attempts to resolve the matter at the level of the workplace. In this case the complainant meets that test. She meets all the tests to support her complaint of constructive dismissal and her case succeeds. Evidence was given of the complainant’s efforts to mitigate her losses. I also accept her evidence in respect of the other complaints in respect of wages owed, annual leave and make my awards under the Payment of Wages Act and Terms of Employment (Information) Act below. The awards are based on or take into account her monthly salary of €2,097.00. |
Decision:
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 all the complaints and award as follows. In respect of CA-00009627-001 I award the complainant €1,197.67 in respect of wages and €128.81 in respect of holiday pay. In respect of CA-00009627-002 I award the complainant €1,527 being three weeks’ wages. In respect of CA-00009627-003 I award the complainant €15,000, in all cases subject to normal statutory deductions. |
Dated: 5th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal, bullying. |