Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adam  Gray

Irish Recruitment Consultants Irc

Representatives

Sima Popat Impellam Group Legal

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-00069418-001

19/02/2025

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 their evidence under affirmation.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal.  However, his submissions outlined a complaint of unfair dismissal and that he had been working as an agency worker with a client of his employer.

Under evidence the complainant confirmed that he did not resign from this employment but stated that on 31 January 2025 he got ‘released’ from his employment.  He stated that the company wrote to him indicating that his assignment was coming to an end at the behest of the respondent’s client.  He stated that he did not receive any further correspondence from his employer. 

He stated that he looked for work and finally started another job three months later.  He confirmed that he sought work for at least an hour a day.

No cross examination took place.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise.  In its letter of 31 January 2025, the complainant was informed that his assignment had ended and that he should submit an up-to-date CV so that the company could begin to match his skills with available jobs.

The respondent submitted that it did not take any active steps to terminate the complainant’s employment. 

The respondent decided not to adduce any oral evidence in relation to this matter.

The complainants work assignment with the respondent’s client came to an end on 31 January 2025 when it wrote to the complainant indicating that his assignment was at an end.  The respondent submitted that this is provided for in the contract of employment between the parties.  This was not disputed by the complainant.

The respondent submitted that it did not take any active steps to terminate the complainant’s employment. However, it was confirmed that it did not take any steps to offer the complainant any alternative work other than to request an up-dated CV from him.  The respondent indicated that the employment relationship has not come to an end.

The complainant confirmed that he was asked to provide an up-dated CV to the respondent on 31 January 2025 but did not do so.  Instead, he sought employment elsewhere for the next three months.

This is an unusual situation in that the complainant does not appear to have resigned from employment, nor does he appear to have been terminated from that employment.  Instead, both parties appear to have let the employment relationship lapse.  There was an onus on the complainant to provide the respondent with an up-dated CV, at the very least to minimise his financial loss, but specifically to continue the employment relationship.  There was an onus on the respondent to follow up on its request to the complainant to provide up-dated documentation, to ensure the continuing adherence with the provisions of the contract of employment.  No complaint was before me regarding a resignation following a breach of contract.

In the circumstances of this complaint, I am not satisfied that the employment relationship came to an end, rather it was put into abeyance by the parties.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented to me, my decision is that the complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise.

Unfair dismissal – constructive dismissal – no evidence of resignation – no evidence of dismissal – no dismissal took place