ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00052606

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  05/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the UnfairDismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.  As provided for in Section 41 (13) and (14) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 I have decided that the proceedings should be held otherwise than in public.  I have determined that due to the existence of special circumstances, that is the inclusion of sensitive medical information, in publishing the decision, information that would identify the parties in relation to whom the decision is made should not be published by the Workplace Relations Commission.

Background:

The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed by way of constructive dismissal when she resigned from her employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation, summarised as follows:

She started in her job on 14 February 2022 and thought it was an amazing place to work.  She got to know her fellow Nurses and felt she was getting on well, until in or around April/May 2023.

From then until November 2023, she endured very stressful situations, including clinical situations.  She was often left on her own e.g. lifting a dog.  She was verbally attacked by one of the nurses who did the rosters for approaching the Practice Manager about being rostered for 4 public holidays in a row.  She stated that while she did not say anything at the time, she felt in fear, was often crying, felt intimidated, nervous and anxious.  This came to a head when she had a breakdown, tried to self-harm and went to the doctor on 10 November 2023.

The Complainant was on sick leave from 10 November 2023, and she saw an online advertisement for a veterinary nurse in December and was concerned this was to replace her.

The Complainant sent an email to the Respondent/owner of the practice on 06/12/2023 outlining in detail what her grievances were and the working relationships difficulties she had experienced.

Much of the content of that email was contained in full in the narrative of the Complaint submitted to WRC.  Extract as follows:

Can I just ask will the new recruit my replacement temporarily or am I being dismissed permanently once they are hired? The following has happened but of course it will probably be denied. I just want you to understand my situation as I don't think punishment or showing this sheet around to staff will help my return to working. I don't know what can be done. I did try to make friends with K at the beginning but I must have ruined the relationship with texting her. So I suppose it mainly happened after M and I had a conversation about bank holidays. I said I had done 4 in a row and she couldn't believe it. I just said we just go by the rota K makes. She said its usually shared. This happened after the last one so probably after the May one. She had then said something to K which meant I was then cornered in cattery as she gave out to me. She was furious i went to M. I explained I was sorry I took her up wrong in the past but if i have any issues I cant talk to her and there's no head nurse. I was afraid of getting snapped at. I explained I was receiving help to deal with my confidence or social issues. She accepted it but wasn't happy with me…

N gave out in the surgery room as I was tidying cables. She just told me to stop it, stop it. Felt like a child... I hadnt talked to her all day and I said sorry I didnt realise. .. Then at dog walk I was completely ignored…Constantly made feel like I can’t speak up, I would try communicate more after this but ignored or fobbed off. So I would say it anyway about the mornings kennels. Then everyone would pretend I didn't tell them anything. Any social chats I was completely ignored. So soon I lost any voice I had. Easier to stay quiet but I did still deliver relevant information. I went up to reception when I was being ignored….

The Respondent replied reassuring her that her job was safe, but she nevertheless worried about it.       Mediation was offered but she was not in a position to engage as she was still healing.  She spent a lot of time and money in therapy and she stated that the experience had ruined her life as she had always wanted to be a veterinary nurse.

In cross examination by HR Consultant on behalf of the Respondent, the Complainant agreed that her relationship with the Practice owner was fine, but it was difficult to approach him as he was so busy.  She said relationships between her and the 2 other practice nurses broke down in 2023, when one of them told her to stop messaging her.  She said she felt left out, the two girls didn’t like her, they got on better together and that the Practice Owner had excluded her from Trial (procedure) which she would have liked to do.  She stated that when mediation or grievance was offered to her she was not in a fit position mentally to engage.  She had no alternative but to resign.

 Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The complainant has alleged that she was forced to resign from her employment due to the conduct of her Employer or others at work. The Respondent rejects this claim and submits that the complainant voluntarily resigned from her position and was not subject to any conduct or conditions that would warrant a claim of Constructive Dismissal under Irish Employment Law.

It is submitted that the complainant resigned from her position without first exhausting, or fully utilising the Respondent’s internal Grievance Procedure and resigned before any Mediation process could take place which she had agreed to prior to and up to the date on which she resigned.

Background

The Complainant began working for the Respondent in February 2022 as a Veterinary Nurse. She was part of a team of nurses who worked alongside Vets and Administrative staff. There were never any issues with the Complainant that the respondent was aware of, and the team worked well together. On the 10th of November 2023, the Complainant submitted a medical certificate to the Respondent via WhatsApp stating that she wouldn't be available to attend work. The medical certificate covered the period from the 10th of November 2023 until the 24th of November 2023. As seen in the WhatsApp messages between the Complainant and the Respondent, the Respondent reassured her she did not need to apologise for her absence and to take care. The reason given for the Complainant’s absence on the medical certificate was ‘under my care’.

No issues were communicated or ever brought to the attention of the Respondent during the complainant's time working in the employment until the 05th of December 2023, when the complainant communicated to the Respondent via WhatsApp. This was due to the Respondent's advertising for a Veterinary Nurse (RVN). The respondent reassured the Complainant her job was safe and that they needed another nurse to assist them. The Complainant accepted this as seen in WhatsApp messages between her and the Respondent. The complainant went on to state “I just want you to know I do love working with you and all the team. It was the treatment of the girls which led me to be in this situation”.

The respondent replied to the Complainant asking her to provide “details of specific instances where the alleged treatment took place”. The complainant responded “I didn’t want to make a fuss or blame anyone, especially the girls. They are lovely and I have tried doing everything I can to work as best I can and for them to be happy working with me”.

On the 06th of December 2023, the respondent received an email from the complainant.  Upon receiving the email, the Respondent was shocked as he was unaware of any issues within the team as there were never any concerns brought to his attention, but he acted quickly as he wanted to resolve any potential issues that the complainant had alleged in her email dated 06th December 2023.

In the opening sentences of the Complainant’s email, she stated “I don’t think punishment or showing this sheet around the staff will help my return to working. I don’t know what can be done”.

After careful review of the Complainant’s email dated the 06th of December 2023, the respondent made it clear to the Complainant that her job was safe and there for her when she returned. He suggested Mediation to the Complainant as she mentioned on two separate occasions that she did not want the other parties to know about it and that she did not want punishment. The Respondent contacted his external HR Provider Ms D to discuss the options available to the Complainant. The Respondent expressed to the complainant that he hoped to organise the mediation as early as possible in the new year in order to get the concerns raised by the complainant resolved asap.

The complainant wanted to get herself better first before engaging with the HR provider and the respondent respected her decision as she had informed him that she was suffering from depression.

On the 14th of February 2024, the complainant sent a WhatsApp to the respondent to request the contact details for Ms D. She said she wanted to see what Ms D thought and that she did not want to upset anyone. On 14th February 2024, the Complainant contacted the HR provider Ms D via text message requesting a call. A call was arranged for the following day the 15th of February 2024 and notes were recorded during this call. Ms D kept in regular contact with the Complainant by text message and telephone call communications. The HR provider went through the different options available to the Complainant as a result of the email the Respondent received on the 06th of December 2023. The Complainant did not want to make a formal complaint as stated in her email on the 06th of December 2023 she did not want her colleagues aware of the contents. The HR provider discussed the option of raising a Grievance, however, the Complainant did not want to take this step. Mediation was then discussed, between the HR provider and the Complainant and she was happy to learn more about this process. It was agreed that a certified Mediator would call the Complainant to discuss Mediation in greater detail. On the 23rd of February 2024, certified Mediator Mr G, spoke with the Complainant regarding mediation and what it entailed. The Complainant expressed that she would be happy to proceed with Mr G facilitating the Mediation. The Complainant spoke with Mr G on three occasions.

On the 06th of March 2024, Mr G spoke with the complainant regarding mediation she wanted to know more about the process and what it would entail. The Complainant also stated that her psychiatrist informed her that it would be beneficial for her to engage in the Mediation process and on the foot of this Ms D requested that she provide a fit-to-attend certificate from her GP. Furthermore, she was happy for the HR Provider to contact the other parties involved to confirm they would engage in the Mediation process and arrange a date that suited all parties.

20th of March 2024

Mr G and Ms D spoke to the Complainant to check in with her. Ms D informed the Complainant that the other two parties were more than willing to engage in mediation. The Complainant disclosed that her GP was going to up her medication as she was still feeling down.

As the complainant was happy to begin the process of mediation, Ms D informed the complainant that she would be back in touch once she received dates that suited all parties to attend mediation. A written record was kept of the calls between Ms D and the Complainant and also between Mr G and the Complainant.

27th of March 2024

Call with Ms K, Veterinary Nurse in the employment, Ms D and Mr G. Mr G explained the mediation process to Ms K. Ms D requested dates that she would be available to attend.

27th of March 2024

call with Ms C, Veterinary Nurse in the employment, Ms D and Mr G. Mr G explained the mediation process with Ms C. Ms D asked for dates that Ms C would be available to attend. On 27th March 2024, the complainant resigned from her position.

Other relevant events prior to 27th of March 2024.

As seen with the WhatsApp messages between Ms K and the complainant they were pleasant and friendly interactions. 

09th June 2023

the complainant sent a text to Ms K, “I’ve never worked with such an amazing group of people and ye always included me”. The complainant also stated, “So I need to find my voice and stop thinking everyone is like past bullies. Hence, the therapy”.

07th June 2023

the complainant sent Ms K a voice note on WhatsApp stating “I am trying to change and I know I have been a horrible bitch in the past and I have you probably know anyway but from oh (inaudible) I can't explain it there's no explanation for I pick things up the wrong way and I talk about people and I shouldn’t and I honestly have never said anything bad about you” The Complainant also said within this voice note “it’s my own lack of self-confidence and I’ve been chopping and changing jobs with nursing jobs, so it’s probably the longest time I’ve been with a group and I’ve always been bullied so it’s because of my confidence. I actually really like you and I really like K”. The complainant has admitted that she chopped and changed jobs due to bullying and her confidence and this is also evident from the complainant’s LinkedIn page.

As seen with the WhatsApp messages between Ms C and the complainant, they were pleasant and courteous interactions.

18th July 2022, the complainant described herself as “being the biggest gossip” in a text exchange with Ms C, where Ms C reassured the complainant that she had never said anything negative about her and had never done anything to annoy her.

22nd of November 2022 the complainant sent a text to Ms C regarding the rotas and Ms C accommodated the complainant’s request by working that day herself so that the complainant could have the day off.

Nurses WhatsApp Group Chat:

26th of October 2022, the complainant messaged the nurse's WhatsApp group chat thanking Ms C and Ms K for their support after a dog had died. They responded to this message by telling her not to worry about her job and licence and to get some rest. The complainant also replied to this chain of messages detailing that the respondent made a telephone call to her and described the call as nice. The public holidays were mostly done by Ms C as stated by the Complainant in a WhatsApp message to Ms C on the 4th June 2022.

Veterinary team WhatsApp group which includes the complainant and the respondent:

The complainant was an active participant in the team WhatsApp group, her opinions and suggestions were always valued, and she was included in social gatherings and thanked by the respondent for suggestions etc.    Communication between the complainant and respondent was always very pleasant. The respondent encouraged the complainant and always considered her suggestions. It was unmistakably clear that she was included in the social element of the team and had attended events with the team. It is also evident that the complainant needed constant reassurance as seen in messages to Ms C and Ms K, in which both parties always reassured her that they had no problem with her. Ms C and Ms K strongly deny the allegations made against them, they are extremely hurt by the allegations the complainant made.

The complainant has alleged that she had to leave her job due to the conduct of her Employer or others at work. However, there is no evidence to support these allegations. As seen in the evidence provided the complainant resigned during a period when the respondent was trying to resolve her alleged concerns. The Respondent submits that it has been well established in law that in proving a claim for Constructive Dismissal the Complainant must demonstrate that they were justified in their decision, and it was reasonable for the Complainant to resign. The complainant must show that she had no option but to resign, furthermore, she must demonstrate that there must have been something objectively wrong and unreasonable with the Employer’s conduct.

Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act defines Constructive Dismissal as

“the termination by the employee of his/her contract of employment with his/her 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”.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, of 1977, which states that constructive dismissal occurs when

An employee resigns due to their employer’s conduct, which must be so intolerable that the employee could no longer be expected to remain in their employment; and

The employee must demonstrate that they had no reasonable alternative but to resign.

The burden of proof lies on the complainant to show that:

• The employer failed to address the issue despite being notified of it; and
• All reasonable internal procedures were exhausted prior to resignation.

As cited in the case, Ryan, Cannon and Kirk Accounting Services Limited v Violeta Kneite [2019], Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act states resignation may be considered constructive in two specific circumstances. Where the Employer’s conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment and in such circumstances the employee would be entitled to resign from their position. The Adjudication Officer in this case relied upon the English Court of Appeal case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1977] EWCA Civ 165, as it was held that to meet the ‘contract test’ an Employer must be “guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance”. The burden of proof is on the complainant to show that her resignation was justified in all the circumstances. The second test is the Reasonable test which can be relied upon as an alternative to the Contract test or as a combination of both tests. The case of Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981, outlines the intertwining of the Reasonableness Test and the Contract test. This case raised the question of whether the Employer conducted their affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so the employee is justified in leaving. In the case of Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] IESC 10. Finnegan J, in considering the conduct of each Party stated: “The appropriate test must be applied to that conduct. In relation to the test the following matters are to be noted: -

1. The test is objective.
2. The test requires that the conduct of both employer and employee be considered.
3. The conduct of the parties as a whole and the accumulative effect must be looked at.
4. 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.”

In the EAT case, McCormack v Dunnes Stores UD1421/2008 stated: “The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer's conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.” It is a well-established principle under Irish Employment Law that employees must exhaust all internal grievance procedures before considering resignation. In this case, the complainant did not invoke or utilise the grievance procedure in place.

The respondent maintains a clear grievance procedure, which is outlined in the Employee Handbook provided to all staff. Furthermore, during the discussions with the HR Provider, the complainant disclosed she did not want to take a formal route when she was offered the opportunity to raise a Grievance. The process of Mediation was then offered to the complainant as she disclosed, that she wanted to return to work, and she was happy to engage with this process up until her resignation on the 27th of March 2024.

Caselaw

In the case of Duane v Masonry Fixed Services Ltd, 2016, the EAT determined that:

“It is incumbent on an employee in a constructive dismissal scenario to act fairly towards his employer, just as he is entitled to expect to be treated fairly by his employer. Part of this is that he will sufficiently notify his employer of any grievance and allow the employer a reasonable opportunity to resolve this. The complainant did not do so. He resigned before allowing the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to resolve his grievances.”

In the case of Jabczuga v Ryanair Ltd, the EAT states: “The complainant in this case failed to fully engage with an exhaustive grievance procedure available to her. In resigning in circumstances that a complainant asserts amount to constructive dismissal, such complainant must act reasonably. This includes affording her employer an adequate and reasonable opportunity to address and remedy any grievance. By resigning before the grievance procedure had run its course the complainant did not afford this opportunity to the Respondent and the Tribunal is satisfied that she did not act reasonably in so doing.

In Freely v Fresenius Medical Care, the EAT found that there had not been a breach of a significant term of the complainant’s contract. The EAT went on to find that the failure to invoke an employer’s grievance procedure or speak to a trusted manager about her concerns was fatal to the constructive dismissal claim. In addition, the EAT found that the employee had not allowed enough time to pass to firmly establish whether her superior’s behaviour towards her was as detrimental to her employment future as she believed.

McCormack V Dunnes Stores, in relation to the reasonableness test, held that: “the notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his /her employer. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of the employment with the particular employer intolerable”.

Conclusion

As from the cases cited within this submission, the Complainant did not act reasonably as she failed to provide the Respondent with an opportunity to address the alleged issues she had with her colleagues. She did not act reasonably as she opted to utilise the Mediation process and upon confirming this, she resigned from her position in the practice prior to the process commencing. The complainant also did not utilise the grievance procedure that was offered to her on the 14th of February 2024. She also did not notify the Respondent of any alleged issues at the time they arose during her employment.

The case of Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981, outlines the intertwining of the Reasonableness Test and the Contract test. This case raises the question of whether the Employer conducted their affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. The Tribunal held that the complainant had not acted reasonably in resigning without first having “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints”.

Barry -v- HSE Trading as HSE Northwest 2016 27E.L.R. 268 where it was stated:

“The Tribunal finds that the complainant did not give her employer an opportunity to deal with her complaint”. There is an obligation for the employee to act reasonably when they impute a charge of unreasonableness against an employer.

The Complainant pursued Mediation and resigned as this process was about to commence. The complainant did not exhaust the Grievance Procedure and thus did not afford the Respondent the opportunity to deal with her concerns. The fact that the complainant resigned without giving the Employer any opportunity to address her concerns undermines her claim for constructive dismissal. Additionally, the Respondent has consistently promoted an open-door policy, encouraging employees to raise any concerns. Moreover, no other employees have ever raised concerns. It is apparent in text correspondence that the complainant felt it was a great place to work and that she loved working with the team. As seen from text messages from the Complainant to a work WhatsApp group, the Respondent has always been supportive of the Complainant even when mishaps occurred at work. The Complainant also stated during the correspondence with Ms K “I love ye and working at (employment)”. She also stated that “I’ve never worked with such amazing group of people and ye always included me”. The Complainant was also on medically certified sick leave from the 10th of November 2023 and did not return before resigning on the 27th of March 2024. Her sick certificate covered her absence until the 30th of April 2024. There is no medical evidence to support her claim that she was suffering from work-related stress or depression due to her working conditions.

In Donovan v Dunnes Stores, the EAT noted the absence of medical evidence to support the complainant's contention that she suffered from work-related stress. The reason submitted on the medical certificates was stated as ‘under my care’ and ‘medical condition’. There was never any indication that the Complainant was suffering from depression due to the treatment of her colleagues or the respondent. It must also be noted that the Respondent understands that the Complainant obtained alternative employment as a Veterinary Nurse shortly after resigning from her employment with the Respondent. It is also evident from the complainant’s Facebook page that she has been working since the 30th of April until the present.

Furthermore, the respondent received requests for a reference on behalf of the complainant which he provided. In light of the above, it is clear that:

• The complainant was not subjected to any conduct that would justify a claim for Constructive Dismissal.
• The complainant failed to invoke the internal Grievance Procedure, which was available and accessible. The complainant also failed to engage in mediation after confirming she was happy to attend.
• The complainant voluntarily resigned during the Mediation Process without giving the Respondent any opportunity to resolve any alleged issues.

The Respondent behaved reasonably and expeditiously at all times when dealing with the complainant. She failed to exhaust any avenues available to her prior to her resignation and on that basis, her claim for constructive dismissal must fail. We respectfully submit that the claim for Constructive Dismissal should be dismissed in its entirety.

Evidence given

In the hearing on 05/06/2025, evidence on affirmation was given by the two Practice Nurses (A and B) with whom the Complainant had difficulties.  Evidence on affirmation was also given by the Practice Manager and by the Respondent/owner of the practice.

Nurse A gave evidence on affirmation.  She stated that the working relationship with the Complainant was very good at the beginning.  Then she started getting messages from the Complainant asking “why are you mad at me?” and the Complainant presented as being stressed for various reasons.  She tried to reassure the Complainant and she could not understand some of the messages which she got out of the blue asking “why are you mad at me?”  The witness refuted many of the allegations made by the Complainant, she stated that she did not exclude her from social activities, and that while she did say to her why did you not approach me about bank holidays, this was not done in an aggressive manner.  When she was told that the Complainant was accusing her of bullying and harassment, she was distraught.  She would have welcomed mediation in order to clear her name.

Nurse B gave evidence on affirmation.  She stated that she came into the employment about 6 months after the Complainant.  She did try to become friends with her but it became clear that the relationship would be work related.  She went through a number of allegations made by the Complainant and refuted any suggestion that she ever shouted at the Complainant.  She did confront her about a few things but not in any aggressive way. 

Practice Nurse gave evidence on affirmation.  She confirmed that she approached the nurse who was doing the rosters re the public holidays issue the Complainant had raised.  She was not aware of any depression issues with the Complainant and cannot recall the Complainant leaving in tears.

Respondent/Practice owner gave evidence on affirmation.  He stated that relationships between the nurses in the practice had always been positive and collegial, as well as relationships between the nurses and vets.  The Vets and Nurses mingle well together, being professional when required and engaging in light chats when appropriate.  As far as he was awre his working relationship with the Complainant was good, professional and she performed her tasks well.  He was surprised to get the medical certs covering the Complainant’s absence which was to run from November 2023 to 30 April 2024.  He refuted many of the allegations made by the complainant, such as higher risk anaesthetics being given to her.  He also clarified that Nurses names do not appear in the billing process which is designed to identify revenue for the Practice.  In late November 27/11/2023 she left a 3 minute voice call to say she was suffering from depression.  On 05/12/2023 she emailed him with a list of grievances mainly against 2 practice nurses.  He was shocked and upset and asked himself “how could I have missed that?”.  Then on reflection he took a step back and realising that the allegations were one side of the situation, offered mediation to the Complainant.  In cross examination, he stated that he had appointed a Professional HR Consultant and a Professional Mediator and felt he could not have done anything more to try and keep the Complainant in her job.

Findings and Conclusions:

The definition of constructive dismissal as provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) is:

“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”.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she suffered quite extreme mental health challenges by the deterioration of the working relationships between her and the other practice nurses in the employment.  The Respondent’s evidence was that he had no knowledge of this until he received a communication from the Complainant on 6 December 2023.  There followed a prolonged period of sick leave.

The chronology of events is as follows:

14/02/2022        Complainant started work as a Veterinary Nurse.

10/11/2023        Certified sick leave

06/12.2023        Complainant letter to Practice Owner (Respondent) with list of issues

14/12/2023        Respondent replies proposing mediation

14/02/2024        Complainant texts Respondent stating that she is not recovered and still on sick leave

14/02/2024       Mediation being discussed

27/03/2024        Complainant resigns.

The Complainant was employed as a Veterinarian Nurse from 14/02/2022 until 27/03/2024 when she resigned her position and contended constructive dismissal.  By her own evidence, she suffered depression since in or around November 2023.  She stated that she had a breakdown in November 2023 and it was her evidence that she was suffering from depression when the HR Consultant and Mediator spoke to her about mediation.

As pointed out extensively the burden of proof lies with the Complainant in cases of constructive dismissal.

In this case, however, I find that there were extenuating circumstances which existed to differentiate the situation the Complainant’s mental health condition being of significance.    I note, for instance that the Respondent did not refer her for an Occupational Health Medical assessment.  There may have been some alternative solution in the situation where the Complainant was not mentally strong enough to partake in mediation.  I find that, on the balance of probabilities, referral to Occupational Health, and an alternative to mediation was not given due consideration, and I find the Complainant’s complaint well founded.

I uphold her complaint and award the Complainant the sum of €5,200 compensation.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint  in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

CA-00064438-001

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I award her the sum of €5,200 compensation.

Dated:   24th July 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: