Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emma  Bell

Capel Abbey Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00061343-001

01/02/2024

The Complainant was employed as an office administrator from 20th February 2023 until 10th January 2024.

The Complainant was forced to resign due to the conduct of her employer.

She was employed as an office administrator and told she would be required to draft the lease, arrange a date for inspection with the tenant and for the tenant to sign the lease. After a few months, she was told to attend the inspections on her own and to sign the lease on behalf of the Landlord.  In July 2023 she found out she was pregnant and informed the company straight away.

She was told by someone she should not be doing this as she does not hold a PSRA licence. She brought up these issues with her manager in September or October 2023, and was told she could do its as they were using someone else’s licence. Her concerns were dismissed but she became increasingly worried about it. She was not given training and was left to deal with the tenants. Her manager stopped coming into the office, and did not return her calls. When she raised her frustrations with him, he raised his voice in the office and said he wanted a meeting with her the next day. She says he called her a “ f             b****” after she left the office.

The Property Services Regulatory Authority informed the Complainant that only a licence holder can sign a lease on behalf of the Landlord and arrange for the tenant to sign the lease. She was asked to sit the license holders training as well which she refused to do. The Complainant was four months pregnant and found it stressful. Her manager stopped answering emails and coming to the office as he had a new business. Another member of staff was taken on and she felt she was being forced out. She had to take two weeks off due to work-related stress. She submitted a medical certificate in November 2023.

The Complainant said Mr. Bratuhhin was living in France from July 2023 until February 2024. She felt pushed out of the business and blamed as things were going downhill. She told her manager and the Director of her concerns about not being allowed do the work she was asked to carry out, but did not receive any reassurances. He would not respond to her queries, this made it difficult for her to continue. She left on 10th January 2024.

The Respondent denies the complaint and says the Complainant was not dismissed due to her pregnancy. Her pregnancy was welcomed and celebrated. There was no one pushing her out of her job. She was encouraged to stay. It was her own decision to leave the company.

She was initially employed as an office administrator and was given an employment contract and job description. The Complainant’s job description for office administrator included management of tenants, lettings, maintenance, and other tasks required. He was not sure why she was refusing to carry out lease renewals.

Mr. Krumins is a Director of the Respondent and a licensed property agent. He was not involved in the day-to-day running of the office which was the responsibility of Mr. Bratuhhin. The Respondent says the Complainant did not have experience, and was not asked to perform anything she should not have carried out. Mr. Bratuhhin is based next door to the office and was available to answer the Complainants’ queries. The Complainant worked with precedents and created leases.

Mr. Krumins said there were some emails sent to the Complainant pointing out some weaknesses and issues. There was no blame or punishment for mistakes. He said she had support. He said the Complainant’s performance was good initially, but her attendance became poor. She was coming in the office at will or working from home which was not agreed. Nothing was done about this as it is a small company. The Complainant knew Mr. Bratuhhin before she was hired and was friendly with him. She was paid for travel to Drogheda and given financial support to get the apartment where she lives.

Mr. Bratuhhin denied calling the Complainant a “f      b****” and said he was friends with the Complainant. He offered to sell the Complainant and her boyfriend the car she was using, which loan was repaid monthly. He employed her boyfriend as well. Mr. Bratuhhin gave the Complainant the extra help she needed when she said she was struggling. He employed another person to assist in the office in September 2023.

I heard and considered the evidence and submissions of the parties.

The Complainant’s claims unfair dismissal pursuant to S 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015 and that she has been constructively dismissed under Section 1 of the Act. The Act defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee as:

“ the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in 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”.

Section 6. (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended provides:

“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.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

………………

(f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith,

(g) the exercise or proposed exercise by the employee of the right under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 to any form of protective leave or natal care absence, within the meaning of Part IV of that Act, or to time off from work to attend ante-natal classes in accordance with section 15A (inserted by section 8 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004), or to time off from work or a reduction of working hours for breastfeeding in accordance with section 15B (inserted by section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004)……….”

In a claim of constructive dismissal, the burden lies on an employee to prove on the balance of probabilities that firstly, the employer has breached her contract and as a result the employee is entitled to resign or secondly that it is reasonable for the employee to resign given the conduct of the employer.

The Complainant was employed as an administrator with the company on 20th February 2023. She gave evidence she was told to prepare leases and attend inspections when she entered employment. Some months later, she was requested to attend property inspections and to sign the lease on behalf of the Landlord. She contacted the Property Services Regulatory Authority who advised that only a licence holder is authorised to sign leases with tenants on behalf of the Landlord. The Complainant said she raised this issue and difficulties with the work on numerous occasions with her manager. She submitted evidence of correspondence with her manager and the company Director on 21st December 2023 requesting the issues to be urgently addressed, and impact of the stress on her pregnancy. She did not receive any response or assurances from the company. The Complainant was forced to leave the company on 10th January 2024.

I am satisfied that the Complainant raised her grievance with the company in writing, and it had adequate notice of her serious concerns. The Respondent did not respond to the concerns raised nor investigate the grievance in accordance with SI 146 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of practice on grievance and disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to the company’s unreasonable conduct in failing to investigate her grievance and address her concerns while she was pregnant. The appropriate redress is compensation. In all the circumstances, it is just and equitable that the Complainant be awarded 16,153.76 euro gross financial loss and I direct payment by the Respondent.

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant is awarded 16,153.76 euro gross financial loss and I direct payment by the Respondent.