Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Samantha  Dwan

Carmichael

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

Katie Ridge Adare Human Resource Management

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-00067388-001

14/11/2024

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

CA-00067388-002

14/11/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give evidence under affirmation However, no evidence was provided by the respondent and no cross examination was availed of.

The complainant acknowledged that both of the complaints taken related to the same matter and the second complaint was a duplicate.

The complainant submitted she resigned from her employment as she was left with no other option and that she couldn't remain working there.  The complainant outlined that she was the subject of an investigation and was on suspension for the duration of the investigation. While out on suspension, she filed grievance regarding the manner that the suspension and investigation was conducted. The investigation concluded and she returned to work.  She stated that upon her return to work she was offered the opportunity of mediating her grievance and accepted it. However, within a short number of days she submitted her resignation. She took a constructive dismissal complaint shortly thereafter.

In evidence the complainant stated that she could not wait for them to conclude mediation as she did not want to continue working in that environment. She stated that her return to work was followed, four days later, by the submission of her resignation.

The respondent submitted that the complainant did not exhaust all options available to her prior to submitting her resignation. The respondent submitted that the CEO offered the complainant the option of pursuing her grievance in a formal or informal basis. The complainant indicated that she wanted to pursue matters on an informal basis and the respondent offered to engage a mediator to resolve matters.

The respondent submitted that before it had time to engage a mediator, the complainant resigned. The respondent submitted that no dismissal took place and that the complainant resigned from her employment of her own volition.

The respondent submitted case law in support of its contention that an employee is required to exhaust all internal procedures before submitting a resignation and relying upon constructive unfair dismissal.

The complainant took a constructive unfair dismissal compliant.  An incident occurred in the workplace following which the complainant was suspended while an investigation was undertaken. While on suspension the complainant submitted a grievance. The suspension was lifted, and the complainant returned to work, the CEO contacted the complainant to inquire whether she wanted her grievance dealt with informally or on a formal basis. The complainant indicated that she wanted the matter dealt with informally however within four days she resigned from her employment.

The respondent submitted that the complainant did not act reasonably in resigning her employment as she had not previously “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints” as outlined in Conway v Ulster Bank (UDA 474/1981).

The case law in this regard is quite clear that before relying on constructive unfair dismissal an employee is required to exhaust all internal dispute resolution mechanisms. This has been outlined in Conway, above and restated regularly in other cases before the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court. 

The complainant confirmed that she resigned after being offered and accepting mediation. She resigned within 4 days of agreeing to go down the mediation route. The complainant did not outline any reasons why she was unable to exhaust those options.

I am satisfied that the complainant has not exhausted all internal options open to her to resolve her dispute and that her resignation was peremptory. Therefore, I am satisfied that the complainant cannot rely on constructive unfair dismissal in circumstances where she has not exhausted all options available to her prior to reaching that decision. Accordingly, I find that the complainant resigned from her employment and was not unfairly dismissed.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Constructive unfair dismissal – all internal options not exhausted -complainant not unfairly dismissed