ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  ADJ-00051362

Parties: 

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Date of Hearing:  24/10/2024

Procedure:

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 19th April 2024.  It concerns a complaint of constructive dismissal in circumstances where the Worker does not have the requisite one year’s continuous service to pursue a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.  There was no objection by the Employer to the WRC investigating this dispute.  The Worker was self-represented and the Employer was represented by RDJ LLP and a number of witnesses were present on its behalf.  Comprehensive submissions and documentation was received from both Parties.  Following delegation to me by the Director General, I inquired into this dispute and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence/submissions. 

This dispute was heard by remote hearing on 24th October 2024 along with a related complaint referred under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 – Ref No: CA-00062908-002.  There was consent to amending the legal name of the Employer.  As the Worker was self-represented, I outlined the relevant statutory provisions.  The Respondent raised a number of preliminary issues.  It was contended that the complaint was out of time, having been referred outside of the six-month referral period and the Worker had not availed of the internal grievance process before resigning.  Furthermore, she was unable to identify a full-time comparator.  Accordingly, she withdrew both the complaint and dispute.  I afforded her a period of six weeks to avail of professional advice and if she changed her mind, to provide a legal basis for the pursuit of same.  By email dated 4th December 2024, the Worker confirmed her withdrawal of the complaint but indicated that she still wished to pursue this dispute.  She made a submission in relation to the adherence to time-limits which has no bearing on this dispute.  I am satisfied that I have heard sufficient evidence/submissions to issue a recommendation without reconvening the hearing.  Section 13(8) of the Act provides that hearings shall be held in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the Parties within this recommendation should not be published.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

On 1st June 2023, the Worker commenced employment as a Dealership Accountant on a Fixed-term contract to cover the maternity leave of a permanent employee with an expiry date of 30th November 2024.  On 10th October 2023, she had re-arranged her workstation within a shared office and the following day on 11th October 2023, had been asked by the branch manager to return it to its original orientation.  On the same date, she tendered her resignation by email to her Supervisor.  She accepted that she had first complained of a glare on her computer screen during a follow-up call with her Supervisor on 12th October 2023 and had not utilised the Employer’s grievance procedures as furnished.  It was also not in issue that the Employer had amicably agreed to pay for taxis to enable her work out her notice at another branch until 20th October 2023.  She had subsequently made a health and safety complaint to a Regulatory Body.  Notwithstanding that a year had passed since the termination of the employment relationship, the Worker sought to have the Employer pay for her to undergo an eye test and also pay her financial compensation.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that the WRC should not entertain this dispute in circumstances where the Employer had been unaware of the Worker’s issue with a glare on her computer giving rise to her resignation and had not availed of the internal grievance procedures before tendering her resignation.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the factual background and submissions on behalf of both Parties to this dispute.  Akin to the legal position in relation to complaints of constructive dismissal, the Labour Court has consistently held that Parties should exhaust all internal / alternative processes available to them before the referral of an industrial dispute.  Given that the Parties are no longer in an employment relationship and the Employer had not been afforded any opportunity to address the Worker’s issue giving rise to her resignation beforehand, there is no basis upon which I can recommend the financial compensation sought.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to this dispute.  For the aforesaid reasons, I cannot accede to the recommendation sought herein by the Worker.

Dated:   10-04-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard