Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elizabeth Turner

Baldoyle Forum CLG

Representatives

Represented herself 

Represented by a manager and a member of the board of directors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067517-001

19/11/2024

The respondent is a registered charity and manages the community hall in Baldoyle, which is owned by Fingal County Council.  It is used all year round by groups such as the Forget Me Nots, Alcoholics Anonymous, Prosper Fingal, the Active Retired group and St Michael’s House.  It is also rented for classes in yoga, Zumba, karate, hip hop and art, as well as by religious groups.

The complainant commenced working with the respondent on July 1st 2022 as an events and communications officer.  She was one of four employees whose salary was funded by the community supports programme through Pobail.  She was paid €29,700 per year and, in her evidence at the hearing, she said that she was the only full-time employee in the organisation.

The evidence presented at the hearing of this complaint shows that, between March and May 2024, there were difficulties in the relationship between the complainant and her manager, Ms Heidi Bedell.  The complainant resigned on May 20th, during a team meeting which she attended with Ms Bedell.  Also in attendance were the community development manager and the building officer, but these two employees did not attend the hearing at the WRC.  The chairperson of the board of directors, Ms Cathy Lawless attended the latter part of the meeting and she gave evidence at the hearing.

On the evening of May 20th, Ms Bedell wrote to the complainant and asked her to confirm in writing her decision to resign.  In the same letter, Ms Bedell accepted the complainant’s verbal resignation and informed her that she could remain at home on “gardening leave” for the duration of her notice period of one month.

The next day, May 21st 2024, the complainant wrote to Ms Lawless and told her that she was withdrawing her resignation.  She was then out sick due to work-related stress.  On May 22nd, Ms Lawless replied to the complainant and told her that she would bring her letter to the attention of the board of directors at a meeting that evening.  On May 27th, Ms Lawless informed the complainant that her letter of May 21st had been sent to Ms Bedell.  On May 31st, Ms Bedell sent the complainant a copy of the staff handbook which includes the grievance procedure. 

On June 28th 2024, the complainant enquired with Ms Bedell about why she wasn’t paid any wages.  Ms Bedell informed the complainant that her employment had ended on June 20th.  On July 2nd, Ms Lawless wrote to the complainant and informed her that the board did not accept her withdrawal of her resignation.      

On September 30th 2024, the complainant sent an email to the board of directors and asked to be reinstated in her role as events and communications officer.  Ms Lawless replied on October 1st and said that the complainant’s correspondence would be considered at the next board meeting on October 15th.  On October 16th, Ms Lawless wrote to the complainant and informed her that the board was seeking advice about her request.  When she had no further response from the board, on November 19th 2024, the complainant submitted this complaint to the WRC.

The complainant claims that she resigned in the heat of the moment and that she didn’t submit her resignation in writing and that she didn’t intend to resign.  By not permitting her to retract her resignation, she claims that the respondent has terminated her employment unfairly.   

In accordance with s.6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”), the burden of proving that the dismissal of the complainant was not unfair rests with the respondent.  In the section that follows, I have arranged the respondent’s case around their response to the complainant’s submission of November 19th 2024 which was sent to the WRC on February 11th 2025 and on the evidence given at the hearing itself.

On the form on which she submitted her complaint to the WRC, the complainant stated,

“I have been prevented from withdrawing my verbal resignation after lodging a complaint with my employer regarding the unreasonable behaviour of my manager, Heidi Bedell.”

It is the respondent’s position that no formal complaint was ever received from the complainant by the manager or the board of directors in the respondent’s organisation.

Evidence of the Manager, Ms Heidi Bedell

Ms Bedell explained the structure of the Baldoyle Forum, which is a community programme funded by Pobail.  She said that the complainant did in-house training when she joined the organisation, and training on social media.  She said that, in the first year of her employment, things weren’t too bad.  In her annual review document for 2023, under the heading, “General Comments,” the complainant thanked Ms Bedell for her patience and support.  Ms Bedell said that she was keen for the complainant to learn how to do the job.  She observed that she had developed a pattern of getting other people to do her job and she said, the results weren’t always good.  Ms Bedell said that she hadn’t given up on the complainant and that she was keen to address the problems.  Ms Bedell said that it is her view that the complainant’s decision to resign was the best decision for her.

At the meeting at 9.00am on Monday, May 20th at which she resigned, Ms Bedell said that the complainant was quite abusive.  She said that the chairperson, Ms Lawless, and the community development manager, who was at the meeting, asked her to re-consider her decision.  She said that she heard Ms Lawless advising the complainant that she could bring her concerns to the attention of the board of directors.

On the evening of May 20th, Ms Bedell said that she hadn’t heard from the complainant that she wanted to withdraw her resignation and she wrote to her and asked her to confirm her decision in writing.  Although she had offered to work out her notice, Ms Bedell said that she didn’t think that was a good idea.  She arranged for the complainant to be paid four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, including pay for normal overtime.

In response to the complainant’s submission, Ms Bedell referred to the event organised on March 11th 2024 to mark International Women’s Day.  Ms Bedell recalled that she was scheduled speak at the event and, when she was giving the complainant a lift home the evening before, the complainant assured her that everything was organised.  They had decided that smoothies would be prepared for the attendees and Ms Bedell said that she bought the ingredients beforehand.  When she arrived at the venue a few minutes before the event was due to start, the smoothies were not prepared and she saw Ms Lawless chopping vegetables.  The shopping she had bought was still unopened.  Ms Bedell said that she started to help making the smoothies with Ms Lawless and some transition year students when the complainant approached her and asked her to look at the room where the speakers were scheduled to speak.  When she declined to look at the room, Ms Bedell said that the complainant threw a tantrum.

On March 15th 2024, as she was giving the complainant a lift home, Ms Bedell said that she suggested that she “shadow” the complainant as she took the lead for the next event, which was the Bay Festival, and that the complainant could shadow her for the Food Festival.  She said that the purpose of this was to get a better understanding of the attention to detail required when organising an event.  Ms Bedell said that the thought that the complainant accepted this approach.

On Friday, April 5th 2024, the complainant told Ms Bedell that the building officer had offered to drop leaflets about the Baldoyle Food Festival to a distribution company to be delivered.  There was a mix-up in communications between the complainant and the building officer and he didn’t bring the leaflets to the distribution company.  Ms Bedell noticed that the complainant blamed the building officer for the problem and was undermining him and she felt that this was unfair.  The complainant felt that Ms Bedell didn’t listen to her side of the story.

In her evidence, Ms Bedell said that the complainant was very cross because the building officer didn’t distribute the leaflets.  When he arrived at the meeting with a wrong banner, Ms Bedell said that she joked to him that “That’s punishment for not delivering the leaflets.”  Ms Bedell said that she felt that the building officer was hurt at the complainant’s criticism, and that’s why she made the joke about the banner.  She said that the complainant wanted her to have words with him but she felt that that wasn’t necessary, because he was upset that he hadn’t done what the complainant asked him to do.

In preparation for the local and European elections, the organisation tries to increase voter turnout.  A “Meet the Candidate” event was organised for May 18th 2024.  At a meeting on May 13th, it became apparent that not all the candidates had been invited to the event and the complainant agreed to ensure that they were all invited as a priority.

The following day, Tuesday, May 14th, the complainant came to work in the office, although she usually worked at home on Tuesdays.  She claims that this was a study day, although Ms Bedell said that she agreed that the complainant could take Wednesday May 15th as a study day.  On Tuesday the 14th, the complainant had arranged to meet the community development manager to get help with an assignment related to her project management course.  She claims that Ms Bedell verbally attacked her in her office. 

When she noticed that the complainant was in work on Tuesday, May 14th, Ms Bedell said that she called her as she was passing her office and she told her that she thought that it might be necessary to notify the Gardaí about Saturday’s event, in case there was any trouble.  She said that there was no argument and no concerns raised by the complainant during their conversation and she was unaware that the complainant was upset afterwards.  She said that they chatted amicably in the car on the way home.

The complainant worked from home on Thursday, May 16th.  Ms Bedell asked for a meeting over Zoom to discuss the upcoming Meet the Candidate event on Saturday.  At the request of the complainant, the meeting, which took place over two hours on Zoom, was recorded.  Ms Bedell said that she outlined what would happen at the event and they concluded the arrangements about 74 minutes into the meeting.  Towards the end of the meeting, Ms Bedell said that she asked the complainant to have a face-to-face meeting with her off site to discuss how they might improve communications between them.  The complainant asked for someone else to attend with them “to mediate us a little bit?”  Ms Bedell said that she agreed to this.

Cross-examining of Ms Bedell by the Complainant

The complainant asked Ms Bedell if she agreed with the community development manager that the issues could have been resolved if they had sat down and had a discussion.  Ms Bedell replied saying that she thinks that the job was too much for the complainant and that she chose to resign.  She said that she thinks that the complainant was trying to set her up to extract money from the organisation.

In response to a question from the complainant about why they couldn’t have calmly discussed the issues between them, Ms Bedell said that, when the complainant asked for the Zoom meeting to be recorded, she felt she had been “cobbled.”  She said that she felt that the complainant was trying to trip her up.

The complainant asked Ms Bedell why she wasn’t permitted to bring her concerns to the attention of the board of directors.  Ms Bedell replied that her direct relationship was with her as her manager and that she was advised to use the grievance procedure to raise her concerns.

In response to a question about her June wages, Ms Bedell said that the complainant was paid her June 2024 wages in July.  She said that she took the figures that the complainant gave her regarding the wages that were due and she passed them to payroll.  She said that she instructed the payroll company to terminate the complainant’s employment on June 20th 2024 and to include any remaining holidays in her final pay.

The complainant asked Ms Bedell about what happened at the meeting of the board of directors on May 21st 2024.  Ms Bedell said that she thinks the members discussed the issue of the complainant wanting to withdraw her resignation.  She said that the directors decided that they wanted to get advice.  Ms Bedell said that she isn’t sure if she showed the directors the letter that she sent to the complainant on May 20th in which she confirmed her acceptance of her decision to resign.

The complainant asked Ms Bedell about a phone call that she had with Ms Lawless on May 16th.  Ms Bedell said that she spoke to Ms Lawless after the complainant asked for a Zoom meeting to be recorded and for a mediator.  She said that she phoned Ms Lawless and said that they “have trouble with Liz.”

Ms Bedell said that she didn’t tell the board of directors that the complainant felt bullied.

After the board meeting on May 21st 2024, Ms Bedell said that she had a telephone conference with a solicitor.  She said that the solicitor talked her through the procedures that would follow if a claim was submitted to the WRC.  The advice received was that the organisation was not obliged to allow the complainant to rescind her resignation.

Concluding her evidence, Ms Bedell said that she believes that the complainant knew that she had resigned.  She said that she never admitted to regretting her resignation.  Ms Bedell said that she feels that the complainant was getting advice to build a case against her.  She said that, at the time of her resignation, she had not given up on the complainant remaining at work in the organisation.

Evidence of the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, Ms Cathy Lawless

In her role as the chairperson of the board, Ms Lawless is a volunteer.  Ms Lawless said that she attended the meeting on May 20th at which the complainant said that she was resigning.  She said that the complainant brought up something that happened the previous Tuesday, May 14th.  On May 18th, the “Meet the Candidate” event was being run by the complainant.  Ms Lawless said that at the event, the complainant asked to speak to her, but she declined to have a conversation because she was there to help as a volunteer.  She said that she advised the complainant to consult the staff handbook and to contact the board of directors by sending her an email.  Ms Lawless said that the complainant sent her emails.  She said that she reported the complainant’s concerns to the board, and she was informed that the members do not get involved in HR issues.  She said that she then informed the complainant that she would send her emails to Ms Bedell.

Ms Lawless said that the complainant didn’t submit a grievance to be investigated.

At its meeting on May 21st, when the members of the board of directors were informed that the complainant wanted to change her mind about resigning, they directed Ms Bedell to get advice about how to respond.  Ms Lawless said that on May 22nd, they were advised that procedures had been followed and that the complainant’s resignation should be accepted.

Ms Lawless said that by the evening of May 20th, the complainant’s resignation had been accepted.  She said that the request to record the Zoom meeting indicated a lack of trust on the part of the complainant.  She said that she thought that the complainant had weighed up everything and had decided that it was in her best interest to resign.

Cross-examining of Ms Lawless by the Complainant

When she received the WhatsApp message from the complainant on May 21st, Ms Lawless said that she didn’t know that Ms Bedell had sent her a letter confirming her resignation.  She said that she decided that the complainant’s decision to change her mind about resigning should be brought to the attention of the board at its meeting that evening.

Ms Lawless said that her recollection of the complainant speaking with her on May 18th at the Meet the Candidate event is the only time that the complainant told her that she didn’t feel supported by Ms Bedell.

The complainant referred to the provision in the company handbook that states that resignation must be submitted in writing.  Ms Lawless said that when she sent her a message on May 21st in which she said that she wanted to rescind her resignation, the complainant was confirming that she had, in fact resigned.

The complainant asked Ms Lawless about her telephone call with Ms Bedell on May 16th.  Ms Lawless replied that this was in response to “communication” being on the agenda for a meeting with the complainant and Ms Bedell.  Ms Bedell had looked for an off-site meeting to go through communications.  Ms Bedell told Ms Lawless about the complainant’s request to record the Zoom meeting on May 16th.  She asked Ms Lawless to act as a mediator between the complainant and herself.  A meeting was suggested for May 23rd.  She said that the mediation was about how to improve communication between the complainant and Ms Bedell.

At the board meeting on May 21st, Ms Lawless said that the board members were informed that the complainant wanted to retract her resignation.  She said that she advised the members that the complainant had attempted to raise a grievance at the event the previous Saturday, May 18th.  She said also that no formal grievance was submitted.

The complainant referred to a copy of an email that she included in her documents for the hearing.  She sent this email to Ms Lawless on September 30th 2024 and expressed her “shock and disappointment that I have been let go by the organisation.”  Ms Lawless replied and informed the complainant that her email would be discussed at the October board meeting.  The complainant said that she received no reply to this email.

In her submission, the complainant said that her role, as events and communications officer, was the only full-time role in the organisation.  She listed her duties as follows:

§  Funding applications;

§  Creating content and managing all social media platforms;

§  Writing content and liaising with the media for publication of press releases;

§  Creating content, updating and managing the website;

§  Working with all tenants and community groups/classes to promote and develop their advertising;

§  Teaching classes when needed;

§  Linking in with local schools to involve students in events;

§  Sourcing, recruiting and working with volunteers;

§  Setting up and take down of rooms when needed;

§  Reception cover.

The complainant said that she reported directly to Ms Bedell, who was the manager of the organisation and she worked on a team comprising Ms Bedell and the building officer.  She also worked closely with Ms Lawless and another director on developing the organisation’s social media strategy.

After the International Women’s Day event in March 2024, the complainant said that Ms Bedell was aggressive and had caused a lot of stress for the staff involved.  On March 11th, the complainant said that Ms Bedell told her that she would be “tailing her” and watching everything she did.  The complainant said that she told Ms Bedell that she felt that she was attempting to micro-manage her.

The complainant referred to the meeting previously discussed by Ms Bedell at which there was a discussion about the fact that the building manager didn’t deliver the leaflets for the Bay Festival to the distributors.  She said that Ms Bedell criticised her for asking the building manager to get the correct banner.  Ms Bedell accused the complainant of being angry.  The complainant said that she felt dismissed and undermined.

The complainant’s submission goes on to refer to her attendance in the office on Tuesday, May 14th and Ms Bedell’s discussion with her about the need for a Garda presence at the Meet the Candidate event on the coming Saturday.  When Ms Bedell asked the complainant about the arrangements for the event, she said that she replied that she was on a study day and that she hadn’t brought her notes with her.  She said that she told Ms Bedell that all the arrangements had been uploaded to the system, but she said that Ms Bedell accused her of lying.

The next day, the complainant said that Ms Bedell asked to meet her on Thursday, May 16th over Zoom to discuss the final arrangements for the Meet the Candidate event.  The complainant asked to record the meeting and Ms Bedell agreed.  At the meeting, Ms Bedell said that she wanted to meet the complainant face to face to discuss how they communicated.  The complainant said that she asked if Ms Lawless could also be present.

Around 2.00pm on Saturday, May 18th, when she and Ms Lawless were preparing for the Meet the Candidate event, the complainant said that she asked to speak to Ms Lawless urgently because she wanted to make a complaint.  She said that she told Ms Lawless that she wanted to complain about Ms Bedell.  She said that Ms Lawless told her that she was there for the event and she advised her to consult the company handbook.

In her submission, the complainant included a comprehensive note of the team meeting that took place on Monday, May 20th.  At the meeting were Ms Bedell, the complainant, the community development manager and the building officer.  When it came to discussing events, the complainant said that Ms Bedell said that she wanted Ms Lawless to be available to discuss this agenda item.  Ms Lawless was attending a funeral nearby and she arrived at the meeting following a text message from Ms Bedell.  The community development manager gave a run-down of all the events that had taken place from February 2024 up to the Meet the Candidate event the previous Saturday.

At the meeting, the complainant told the participants that she felt very unsafe in the office the previous Tuesday, when, she claims, Ms Bedell accused her of lying about the preparedness for the event on Saturday.  She said that Ms Bedell interjected and said, “It is what you thought you heard” and she described the complainant as vulnerable and defensive.

The complainant said that she was extremely upset and that she said that she could no longer work under these conditions and that she had to resign.  In her submission, she said that she resigned “in the heat of the moment” after repeated attempts by Ms Bedell to undermine and incite her.

The complainant said that Ms Lawless advised her to contact the board of directors, but that Ms Bedell said that “she can’t contact the board.”  She said that they were instructed by Ms Bedell to go home.

At 8.23pm on May 20th, the complainant received an email from Ms Bedell asking her to confirm her resignation and placing her on garden leave.  The complainant referred to the section of the company handbook under the heading of notice of termination which provides that such notice must be given in writing.

The complainant opened her evidence by saying that she never resigned.  She said that she is on sick leave because of the termination of her employment and that she has suffered from poor mental health and financial losses.  She said that her objective is to get herself back to work.

On May 21st, the complainant wrote to Ms Lawless and informed her that she wanted to retract her resignation.  She asked for a copy of the company handbook and she informed Ms Lawless that she had an appointment with her doctor the next day.  On May 31st, the complainant received a copy of the company handbook from Ms Bedell.

In response to her query about her wages on June 28th, Ms Bedell wrote to the complainant and informed her that her employment had ended on June 20th, one month after she resigned.  On July 2nd, in response to her email to Ms Lawless, Ms Lawless informed her that she had not been dismissed by the board of directors, and that the board was not accepting her request to withdraw her resignation.

In her submission, the complainant provided details of correspondence between herself and the respondent between June and July 2024 concerning her claim for illness benefit from the Department of Social Protection.  It is my view that this correspondence is not relevant to her decision to resign on May 20th or to the respondent’s decision not to allow her to withdraw her resignation.

The complainant said that she was suffering from stress and anxiety due to the difficulties she had experienced in her workplace and she started counselling on September 16th 2024.  On September 30th, she sent an email to Ms Lawless asking to be reinstated in her job.  Although Ms Lawless told her that her request would be considered at the next board meeting, she didn’t get any further response from Ms Lawless and she submitted this complaint to the WRC on November 19th.

Concluding her submission, the complainant said that she “wholeheartedly did not mean to resign” and the swift retraction of her resignation reinforces that fact.  With the benefit of hindsight, she claims that she now understands that she was bullied and harassed by Ms Bedell and that her resignation presented Ms Bedell with an opportunity to move her on.

In support of her claim, the complainant referred to the decision of my colleague, Ms Emer O’Shea, in the case of Patricia Groarke v Pat the Baker[1] where the adjudicator referred to the case law that points to the necessity of an employer to assess whether an individual is in a sound mental state at the time of resignation or if the resignation was in the heat of the moment.

In support of the complainant, her friend, Ms Brady, said that she had watched her blossom in her job with the respondent, but she has seen the toll that her dismissal has had on her.  She said that it is very unfair that her character has been brought into question.

The Relevant Law

At s.1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, dismissal is defined as,

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(b) 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, or

(c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose[.]

In the publication, “Redmond on Dismissal Law,” by Dr Desmond Ryan[2], at s.22.13, Dr Ryan usefully condenses the meaning of dismissal to the following:

“In general a person is dismissed when the employer informs him clearly and unequivocally that the contract is at an end or if the circumstances leave no doubt dismissal was intended or that it may be reasonably inferred.”

In my consideration of this complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, the issue for me to decide is if, when she resigned on May 20th 2024, the complainant had clearly and unequivocally informed her employer that she wanted to bring her contract to an end and if there was no doubt that she intended to resign.

Consideration of the Evidence

I have considered the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of Ms Bedell and Ms Lawless, for the respondent.  From the information that emerged at the hearing, it seems to me that the complainant was a bit out of her depth in her job.  In her performance review document at the end of her first year, she thanked Ms Bedell “for your patience and support of me,” but, in her second year, it seems to me that she began to resent Ms Bedell having any oversight or giving her guidance.

In her submission, and in her evidence at the hearing, I found that the complainant was inclined to dramatise the facts of a situation to give the impression that she was harassed and micro-managed.  For example, she described Ms Bedell’s proposal that they should shadow each other as “tailing me and watching my every move.”  This is interesting when considered alongside her decision to record the Zoom meeting with Ms Bedell on May 16th.  She claimed that Ms Bedell was “aggressive and chaotic” at the International Women’s Day event when Ms Bedell was frustrated and disappointed that she hadn’t prepared the refreshments to be ready at the start of the event.  She claims that she felt “unsafe” during a conversation with Ms Bedell on May 14th, when she was asked about preparations for the event on the 18th.  She provided no evidence regarding why she felt unsafe and it is apparent to me that her concern was that her inability to state clearly what had been done to prepare for the event did not land well with her manager. I found that the complainant’s use of words like “unsafe” and “felt bullied” were intended to cause alarm and to caution Ms Bedell against any robust intervention regarding her performance.  After she resigned, she asked for a copy of the handbook so that she could consult the grievance procedure.  It is my view that she did not submit a complaint or a grievance because there was simply no substance from which to construct a complaint.

It is my view that the complainant’s request to Ms Bedell to record their Zoom meeting on May 16th was an effort by her to “lay down a marker.”  In effect, she was letting Ms Bedell know that she should be careful around her.  Although she agreed to have the meeting recorded, Ms Bedell said that she felt “cobbled.”  I think that any manager would have felt constrained in such circumstances.  Although Ms Bedell agreed to the recording, it is my view that the complainant’s request was unnecessary, dramatic and provocative.

Was the Complainant Dismissed?

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant resigned at the meeting on May 20th 2024.  It is apparent to me however, that she did not go into the team meeting on May 20th 2024 with the intention of handing in her notice but that she acted defensively and on impulse.  Although their relationship was fractious, I think Ms Bedell’s decision to write to the complainant on the evening of May 20th to accept her resignation was unnecessarily pre-emptive.  It is my view that most reasonable employers, faced with a request such as this would have contacted the employee and arranged to discuss the problem that led to resignation in the middle of a team meeting. 

At 10.07 the following day, the complainant wrote to the chairperson of the board of directors and, referring to “how sad and upset I am that I find myself in this position” she said, “I would like to retract my resignation and request a copy of the staff handbook…”

The case law regarding the failure of an employer to accept that an employee has changed their mind about resigning is as varied as the circumstances themselves.  In general however, the authorities have concluded that an employee who resigns “in the heat of the moment” ought to be given the time and opportunity to think about the situation with a clear head.  In the decision cited by the complainant, Patricia Groarke v Pat the Baker (footnote 1), the adjudication officer referred to the findings of the UK Employment Tribunal in Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Lineham[3].  Mr Lineham resigned after a row about a disciplinary matter.  Unlike the complainant in the instant case, he didn’t ask to withdraw his resignation, but he simply submitted an appeal against his “dismissal” to the Industrial Tribunal.  The Tribunal found that, where an employee resigns in an emotional state, there is an obligation on the employer to allow some time to cool off before accepting that it was their intention to resign.

There is no dispute that, at the meeting on May 20th, the complainant was in an emotional state; Ms Bedell described her conduct as “abusive.”  It is also apparent that she was not coping well with the demands of her job and that she resisted supervision.  Clearly, there was a problem that needed to be resolved and it is my view that, by accepting her resignation, the respondent took the easy way out.

I find that it was unreasonable for the respondent not to allow the complainant to withdraw her resignation, and I must conclude therefore, that she was dismissed and that her dismissal, in the absence of any procedures, was unfair.

I have concluded that the dismissal of the complainant was unfair and I decide therefore, that her complaint is well founded.

Considering the issue of redress, in accordance with s.7(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, I may direct the respondent to reinstate the complainant from the date of her dismissal or to re-engage her with effect from some other date, or I may award compensation.  On the form she submitted to the WRC, the complainant selected compensation.  Based on the evidence of the parties at the hearing, I observed that relations between them are not conducive to the complainant resuming employment and I agree that compensation is the most suitable form of redress.

The complainant said that she has been unable to work since May 2024 because of the effect that the issues at work had on her mental, emotional and physical health.  As she was not represented, I explained to her that any award of compensation for unfair dismissal is based on loss of earnings and that it is well established that an employee who is unable to work because of illness is not entitled to recover earnings that have not been lost.  In her book of documents, the complainant included a copy of a letter from a medical practice that stated that she attended on May 21st 2024 and sought a medical certificate for work-related stress and that she was referred for counselling.  Many employees are capable of working while they attend counselling and, in the absence of substantial medical evidence to explain why the complainant has not attempted to get back to work, I am limited by s.7(1)(ii) of the Act to a maximum award of four weeks’ pay. 

I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2,500, equivalent to just over four weeks’ pay.  In accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, this award is subject to the normal deductions of tax, PRSI and USC.

Request to withdraw resignation