Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ann Marie  Doyle

No Name Club

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Garrett Keenaghan, Chairman

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-00063896-001

04/06/2024

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 two witnesses for the respondent gave evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was offered to the parties.

In June 2020 an ex-employee made a bullying charge against the complainant. This complaint was independently reviewed, and the case was found to be without foundation. The ex-employee did not accept these findings. In August 2023 the ex-employee was elected to the board of the respondent. In March 2024 when the operations manager was out sick the board appointed the ex-employee to oversee the day-to-day running of the organisation, including managerial responsibility for staff.  The Chair of the Board was aware of the previous history between the two employees and how much stress the bullying case caused the complainant at the time.

The complainant pointed out to the Chair that having this individual as reporting manager was unacceptable to her. She submitted that the Chair took no action and from then on the complainant became very stressed with the situation.  She was certified out on sick leave from 7 to 22 March 2024. The complainant submitted that she made a formal complaint to the Chair of the board on 2 April asking if the ex-employee could be excused from being involved in any decisions regarding the complainant’s employment due to a conflict of interest.

The complainant submitted that the Chair responded advising the complainant that he was a volunteer and would endeavour to respond to her complaint in a timely manner. The complainant submitted that she was shocked by this response because the Chair and the Board have legal responsibilities to all employees and using the fact that he and the Board are volunteers was very disrespectful to the complainant as an employee.

The complainant submitted that she was still feeling stressed, so she handed in four weeks’ notice and again went to the doctor who certified her out of work from 11 to 30 April due to work related stress.  On 29 May after following up, seeking a response to her grievance she received a response asking her whether she wanted to proceed with the grievance.

Summary of Relevant Evidence:

In her evidence the complainant confirmed that her rate of pay was €33,200 per annum. She confirmed she went on sick leave in the last two weeks of April 2024. She confirmed that an ex-member of staff was now a Board member and was given a position of authority over staff members. The ex-staff member had made a complaint of bullying against the complainant, and she was under stress given that this person was now responsible for her position. She confirmed that she made a complaint on 2 April 2024 after hours and resigned the following day on three April 2024. 

She confirmed that she was aware that the employee handbook contained a grievance procedure but noted that she didn't invoke the informal procedure.  She confirmed that she didn't wait for the complaint to be processed but resigned within the same 24-hour period. She confirmed that in her mind there was a conflict of interest, and it took a long time for her to recover from that. She said that in the original complaint there had been an amount of vitriol and that she found it difficult to put it behind her. The complainant confirmed that she felt she was in an impossible situation.

The complainant stated that she was never offered the possibility of mediation.  Under cross examination the complainant was asked that, given that it was three years since the bullying case was taken against her, did she still hold animosity towards the ex-employee who took the case. She responded that she did.

The respondent submitted that having gathered the data and reviewed the original letter of complaint and the subsequent WRC specific complaint statement, it fails to see what issues were so intolerable before 6 March such as the complainant was left with no alternative but to resign.  The Board did not assign the managerial function to the ex-employee as a direct line of contact for staff and a communication conduit for the Board until both the complainant and her line manager were out on certified leave at the same time.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was on sick leave from 7 to 22 March 2024. She returned to work on Monday 25th (she had no interactions with the ex-employee), went on holiday leave on 27/28 March, and submitted her letter of complaint on the night of Tuesday 2 April.  She handed in her resignation letter the following morning on Wednesday 3 April.

The respondent submitted that they have behaved in a very reasonable fashion, in giving the complainant, whatever grievance she may have had, the opportunity to address her Manager, the Chair and or any member of the Board on numerous occasions.   The complainant chose to resign before utilising all internal remedies.

The respondent noted that they were a little shocked to receive notice of resignation from the complainant as she was a great worker.  It was submitted that the respondent looked to try handover meetings, exit interviews and mediation options but never got an opportunity to go through any of it as the complainant had already resigned.  It was submitted that the complainant said to the respondent that she didn't want to meet anybody.  It was further submitted that the complainant was not interested in re-employment or re-engagement but just wanted a financial settlement. The respondent submitted that it acted reasonably, and that the complainant did not make any effort to engage with the grievance procedure.

The respondent confirmed that there was a decision-making tree to be followed by the person appointed to the role of overseeing most staff.  However, it was explicitly outlined to her that the complainant would deal directly with the Chair of the Board.

Witnesses for the respondent

The first witness was the Chair of the Board, and he confirmed the outline of the complaint from the respondent’s perspective.  The second witness was the ex-employee who noted that she never had any dealings with the complainant.  She also confirmed that there was no objection to her presence on the Board. She stated that when she was appointed oversee the rest of the staff, she was never over the complainant who had a direct professional relationship with either the Chair of the Board or the Operations Manager.

The complainant submitted that following the appointment of a former colleague as her line manager, she was left with no alternative but to resign. She suggested that there was a conflict of interest on the part of her former co-worker.  She also suggested that the Chair of the Board did nothing regarding her compliant.

The complainant confirmed that submitted her complaint but resigned within 24 hours.  From the evidence submitted, the complainant would not engage with the respondent in their attempt to resolve matters.

The oral and written evidence of the respondent indicated that when the former colleague was appointed in a temporary managerial capacity she was explicitly not appointed to be in charge of the complainant.

The complainant took her grievance but did not wait for the process to play out.  An employee considering resignation in a constructive dismissal situation is required to engage with, and exhaut, internal grievance or dispute resolution process, where they exist, prior to taking the ultimate step of resignation.  This was not done in this case.  Accordingly, I do not think it was reasonable for the complainant to conclude that she had no alternative to resignation.  Arising from the foregoing, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

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

Unfair dismissal – did not wait for a grievance process to play out – not unfairly dismissed.