Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Manager

A Wholesale and Retail Business

Representatives

McGroddy Brennan Solicitors

Did not attend the hearing

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00003624

07/01/2025

The worker has many years’ experience in the retail and wholesale trade, specialising in general household products, toys and seasonal items.  The employer has a number of retail stores and, when he purchased stock from a business in liquidation where the worker had been employed, the managing director, “Mr MD,” asked the worker to join him to set up a wholesale business. 

At the hearing, the worker said that, based on his discussions with Mr MD, he was confident that he could increase sales and make a contribution to the company.  In September 2023, he prepared sales forecasts and a plan for which Mr MD agreed to provide the finance.  The plan involved the purchase of stock from specific companies in the UK, initial order values and the sales that could be achieved, including a significant Halloween range.  In October 2023, with Mr MD’s agreement, the worker travelled to China to visit factories and meet suppliers of the Halloween products.  He was paid for his expenses, but he wasn’t paid for the time he spent in China, nor was he reimbursed €5,990 for the cost of the delivery of samples back to Ireland.

In May 2024, the worker joined the company as a general manager.  He provided a copy of a payslip dated September 30th 2024 which shows that his wages for the ninth month of 2024 were €4,166.66 gross, indicating an annual salary of €50,000.

The worker said that he set up a showroom in a business park where retailers could visit and order stock.  He also recruited a website administrator.  He put together a list of suppliers, but when the managing director refused to buy product from them, and insisted on using his own preferred supplier, the worker said that it became apparent that things wouldn’t work out as he had thought.  The worker said that the product-range, price and quality is not what he built the forecast around and the stock from Mr MD’s source wasn’t what customers wanted.   

The worker said that he pre-sold stock to the value of €150,000 to various retail outlets, but, when Mr MD refused to pay deposits to the factories, the stock wasn’t delivered.  He said that he had to go back to customers who had placed orders to tell them that the stock was cancelled.  He said that Mr MD was upset when the sales targets weren’t met, but he refused to budge on his chosen supplier.

Most of the employer’s employees are from Afghanistan and the worker said that there were communications issues with order picking that resulted in him having to drive around the country resolving mistakes.  He set up weekly planning meetings to trouble-shoot potential issues affecting customers.  He said that customers were losing faith in the company and “issues were snowballing.”  In July and August 2024, he said that he was constantly on the road trying to fix problems. 

On September 15th 2024, the worker said that the business wasn’t developing as he had planned and he wrote to Mr MD outlining the problems as he saw them.  He was also concerned about the company’s finances and he brought in an accountant to help.

When the person working on the website wasn’t paid her wages, on September 25th 2024, the worker said that he phoned an associate of the managing director, who is now the company secretary, “(Mr CS”).  He said that he got a call back from Mr MD, who shouted abuse at him.  He looked for a meeting to try to resolve the issues getting in the way of the business being successful and this took place on September 30th 2024.  The worker and the website administrator attended the meeting, as did Mr MD, his brother and Mr CS.  After what the worker described as a cool start to the meeting, Mr MD became abusive and told the worker that, from then on, he was only required to work one day a week.  When the worker challenged Mr MD’s right to change his terms of employment without discussion, he said that Mr MD berated him saying, “Who are you?  You are nothing, you are a dog.”  He demanded that the worker hand back the keys of his office.  The worker gave Mr MD the keys, left the meeting and waited until the website administrator had safely left the premises.  Shortly afterwards, he sent a WhatsApp message to Mr MD, asking him to clarify his employment situation.  Later that day, he received a letter informing him that his working week had been reduced from five days to one day per week and that this “temporary change” would be reviewed in January 2025.

On October 1st 2024, the worker received his payslip for September, indicating that he had been paid net wages of €3,078.86, based on his gross monthly pay of €4,166.66.  No money was transferred to his bank account and, on October 8th, he sent a letter by registered post to Mr MD, seeking his wages for September and €2,000 in wages for his time spent in China in October 2023.  When he got no response to this letter, on October 14th, he sent an email to Mr MD and Mr CS.  Mr CS replied attaching a copy of the letter from Mr MD of September 30th in which he informed him that his working week was reduced to one day.  In his email, he asked the worker to “please let us know if you are available to work 1 day a week.” 

The worker had no communication from the employer about the work he was required to do for one day a week and, on November 8th 2024, his solicitor, Mr Lane, wrote to Mr MD seeking a letter confirming an amendment to the worker’s contract of employment, his wages for September, a shortfall from his wages in August, wages associated with travelling to China in October 2023 and payment of the invoice for €5,990.78 for delivering samples by courier from China to Ireland.  When there was no reply, Mr Lane wrote again on November 19th, repeating his requests regarding the worker’s contract, his September wages and other money owed.  Mr MD did not reply and the worker sent him a WhatsApp message on November 20th, asking him to meet him to discuss the issues raised by his solicitor.  Mr MD still didn’t reply and Mr Lane wrote to him again on November 27th, but again, there was no reply.  On January 7th 2025, on behalf of the worker, Mr Lane submitted this dispute to the WRC.

At the hearing, the worker said that he was constructively dismissed on October 31st 2024, when it became apparent that the managing director wasn’t going to pay his wages or have any contact with him.  At that stage, he had worked with the company for just under six months.

The information set out by the complainant at the hearing on July 18th 2025, leads me to believe that, to a significant degree, the employer engineered the worker’s dismissal by reducing his working hours, by failing to pay him his wages for September and by refusing to engage with him or to reply to the correspondence from him or his solicitor.  The abuse described by the worker at the meeting on September 30th was grossly offensive and would not be tolerated by any reasonable person.  To describe the circumstances as “unusual” is somewhat of an understatement.  The abandonment of this worker by his employer could only occur in a disorganised and unregulated workplace where there is little regard for the law or the rights of employees.

The worker’s case is that he resigned, and that he had to leave his job because of the conduct of his employer.  In general, to succeed in a case of constructive dismissal, an employee must demonstrate that they have tried to resolve the issues causing them to contemplate leaving.  In the case of this worker, I am satisfied that he and his solicitor made every reasonable effort to contact the employer and to set up a meeting to try to resolve their dispute.  There is no explanation for the employer ignoring this worker, leaving him without wages, without work and without any indication as to how the problems in the workplace would be resolved.

In the circumstances here, it seems to me that there is a thin line between the complainant been dismissed and having resigned.  Although he wasn’t told that he was dismissed, by failing to engage with him or to reply to his correspondence, a case could be made that he was dismissed.  It is the complainant’s position however, that he resigned because of the conduct of his employer and that he was constructively dismissed.  I find that this is a reasonable argument and that most employees in similar circumstances would have reached the same conclusion.

I have reached the conclusion that there is substance to the complainant’s case that he was constructively dismissed and I find that the treatment of him by the employer was grossly unfair.  As compensation, I recommend that the employer pay him €4,000, equivalent to approximately four weeks’ pay.

Constructive dismissal