ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053962
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Fionnuala Murphy | Jumplanes Galway Ltd. |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065924-001 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065924-002 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065924-003 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065924-004 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00065924-005 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00065924-006 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-007 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-008 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-009 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-010 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 19 of the Carer's Leave Act 2001 | CA-00065924-011 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065924-012 | 05/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065924-013 | 05/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised.
Background:
The complainant submitted a number of complaints to the Commission under the above-mentioned legislation on 5th of September 2024. The cognizable 6-month period covered by these claims’ dates from 6th of March 2024.
The complainant submits that she was employed by the respondent from February 2008 to May 2024 when she alleges, she was constructively dismissed from her employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she worked for Mr. J in Gorey Business Park (GBP) from February 2008 to 2016 when she was made redundant. She submits that her employment was initially full-time, then part-time from mid-2009. The complainant submits that she was employed by Jump lanes Galway from September 2016 and did not receive any contract or terms of employment from the respondent The complainant submits that her main duties included payroll and bookkeeping across several companies owned by Mr. J. After Gorey Business Park (GBP) went into receivership in 2016, her employment shifted to Jump Lanes Galway (JPG) Limited. The complainant submits that during COVID-19, she worked remotely while caring for her elderly parents and in 2021, she declined a return to the office due to caregiving responsibilities, and a new arrangement was made: she would handle payroll remotely for €130/week, with additional work paid at an hourly rate. The complainant submits that this arrangement continued until late 2023 when the in-office bookkeeper left and that the replacement lacked bookkeeping experience, causing delays and increased pressure on the complainant , including frequent messages and unrealistic expectations from the respondent. The complainant submits that despite her limited availability, she continued to manage payroll and other financial tasks. She submits that communication issues and lack of support escalated, culminating in an abrupt termination email from Mr. J in May 2024—on her father's anniversary—without notice, holiday pay, or a formal contract. The complainant submits that she felt deeply disrespected after 17 years of loyal service and felt that she was forced to leave her employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that The complainant Ms. F commenced employment in Gorey Business Park in February 2008 and ended it on 30 September 2016, receiving full entitlements. The respondent submits that the complainant arranged her own redundancy and began new employment with Jump Lanes Galway (JPG) Ltd on 3 October 2016 without any gap in pay. It is submitted that her redundancy was self-initiated and not directed by the company; the office position remained open. The respondent submits that the complainant’s employment began informally through a personal connection, and she initially worked full-time but later reduced her hours at her own request to accommodate another job. The respondent submits that the complainant had significant autonomy in her role, especially in admin and bookkeeping. The respondent submits that only certain units of GBP went into receivership in 2015, not the entire company and that GBP was not insolvent and continues to trade successfully. The respondent further submits that Ms. F was not part of the staff meeting where redundancies were announced and that she did not inform the company accountant or directors about her redundancy. Her role was still needed, and she was working a reduced schedule at the time. The respondent submits that Ms. F was trusted with bookkeeping but there were numerous discrepancies discovered during a 2024 audit and Professional bookkeepers had to be contracted to resolve issues. The complainant, Ms. F was reportedly uncooperative during the audit process. Ms. F’s claim of discrimination due to her caring responsibilities is refuted. The respondent submits that she chose to work from home during COVID and did not return to the office. The respondent submits that Ms. F did not assist with training new staff as promised and that communication was mostly verbal and often occurred outside office hours. The respondent submits that Ms. F was responsible for bookkeeping and cash handling. She communicated primarily with one individual Mr. A and did not engage with others in the office. Ms. F’s claim about estimating meter readings is denied. A substantial overpayment to Bord Gais was discovered and recovered during the audit. The respondent submits that he was surprised and upset to receive a formal complaint from Ms. F after 17 years of working together and feels that the matter could have been resolved informally, as Ms. F had multiple opportunities to raise concerns directly The respondent submits that Ms. F did not give notice when she left JPG Ltd and that final wages and holiday pay were issued after the complaint was received. Her last day of employment was taken from her own complaint form, as the position had remained open to her. The respondent submits that he was in critical condition in ICU following a near-fatal accident when the complaint was made and Ms. B responded to Ms. F on his behalf and informed the WRC of his condition. Ms. B attempted to engage with Ms. F regarding holiday pay and other matters, but Ms. F did not acknowledge or respond to this outreach. The respondent submits that Ms. F had ample opportunity to discuss any concerns directly via phone, email, or in person. Instead, she chose legal action. There was no notice given because the position remained open to Ms. F. It is submitted that Holiday payments and final wages issued after this complaint came in. Her last day of employment was taken from her complaint form as the position was still available to her. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065924-001 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing confirmed that this payment of wages claim had since been resolved and she withdrew the complaint at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065924-002 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing confirmed that this matter had since been resolved and she withdrew the complaint at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065924-003 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing confirmed that this matter had since been resolved and she withdrew the complaint at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065924-004 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing confirmed that this matter had since been resolved and she withdrew the complaint at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00065924-005 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
Under section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 an employer shall, not later than two months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say - ………… The complainant advised the hearing that she had not any received a contract or terms of employment from the respondent. The complainant advised the hearing that she was employed by the respondent since February 2008 and that following redundancy in 2016 her employment later transferred to another company which she states is also owned by the respondent and against which company the within claim has been lodged.. The complainant advised the hearing that she had not any received a contract or terms of employment from either company in respect of her employment by the within respondent. Witness for the named respondent Mr J advised the hearing that the complainant never raised this matter with him or with any of the directors. He also stated that the complainant was well aware of her terms and conditions and that she had drafted contracts for other staff. Mr. J also stated that he believed the complainant had drafted her own contract. Witness for the respondent Ms B and daughter of Mr J advised the hearing that there is a contract at the back of the company handbook which is applied to staff when they start their employment. The respondent stated that the complainant may have chosen not to apply that contract to herself, but he stated that she had never alerted anyone to the fact she did not have a contract. The complainant Ms. F advised the hearing that she had not drafted any contracts as this had always been done by Mr A, Operations manager as he did the hiring of staff. The complainant Ms F also stated that the only information she received in respect of her terms was when she engaged with Mr A in 2021 regarding her application to continue to work remotely after Covid and also to reduce her work hours to a two-day week. Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the complainant did not receive a contract or terms and conditions of employment and accordingly I declare this claim to be well founded . I award the complainant €500 in this regard. |
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.
I declare this claim to be well-founded, and I award the complainant €500 in this regard |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00065924-006 | 05/09/2024 |
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.
This is a duplicate claim as the contract matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-005, accordingly I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-007 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Relevant Law – Constructive Dismissal Section 1(b) provides as follows: “dismissal,” in relation to an employee, means – (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.” Significant legal precedent exists which establishes that, for a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, it has to satisfy either one or a combination of both of the following “tests”. There are two sets of circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal. The law is well settled here, and these tests are known as the “contract” test and the “reasonableness” test. The first test, that of breach of contract, requires that the contract of employment has to have been breached to such a degree that the employee is left with no option but to resign. It is now generally understood that an employee must also act reasonably in terminating their employment and that resignation must not be the first option taken by the employee. The reasonableness test requires that the employee must satisfactorily demonstrate that the employer behaved or acted in a manner, which was so unreasonable as to make it impossible for the employee to continue in the employment. The employee must show that his behaviour/action in resigning was reasonable in all the circumstances. In Berber v. Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 ELR, the Supreme Court held as follows: “There is implied in a contract of employment a mutual obligation that the employer and the employee will not without reasonable and proper cause conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between them. The term is implied by law and is incident to all contracts of employment unless expressly excluded. The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.” In the English case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332 Denning J stated: “If the employer is 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 of more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance.” The complainant advised the hearing that she had worked for Mr. J from February 2008, initially full-time, then part-time from mid-2009. The complainant stated that her main duties were payroll and bookkeeping for Gorey Business Park (GBP) and the many other companies owned by Mr. J over the years. The complainant stated that GBP went into receivership in September 2016 – and that her employment was then moved to Jump Lanes Galway Limited (JPG) The complainant stated that as the business was not classed as an essential service her work was done remotely during Covid-19 (payroll, bookkeeping and the various Revenue returns) The complainant stated that during this period she was minding her parents at their home for two days a week – she added that her mother had advanced Alzheimer's and her father was at the time in his 90's. The complainant stated that after the final lock-down in 2021 Mr. J & his nephew Mr. A (the operations manager of JPG Limited & director) asked her to return to the office for the three days a week -but she submits that she advised the respondent that this was not possible as her parents needed support 24-7, and so it was not an option for her. The complainant advised the hearing that an agreement was reached whereby she would continue to do the payroll on a weekly basis for the various companies for €130 Euro per week and that any additional work done by her would be paid at a rate of €17.85 per hour. An e-mail was sent by Mr. A on 30.06.21 confirming same. The complainant advised the hearing that the agreement between the parties was that the complainant would carry out her reduced hours on a remote basis. The complainant stated that the respondent undertook to take on someone else to work in the office to deal with the bookkeeping input. The complainant advised the hearing that Ms. L was taken on to do the bookwork in the office and that this arrangement continued until she left in October 23. The complainant stated that Ms. L was responsible for all data entry, and that her own responsibilities covered all payroll but also monthly debtor invoices/statements for GBP as well as, all Revenue returns and checking the information entered by Ms. L before sending the year end accounts to the accountant to be processed and filed. The complainant submits that when Ms. L left the owner Mr. J asked the complainant what type of person was needed to replace her, and she replied, ‘an experienced bookkeeper’. However, the complainant states that the respondent then took on Ms. M in November ’23, whom the complainant states was a legal secretary and who had no bookkeeping experience. The complainant advised the hearing that as a result the data entry/bookkeeping work fell behind and that she herself was getting constant e-mails and text messages from Ms. M asking her to do various tasks which although the complainant explained that she was only available each Tuesday/Wednesday –she was told that these emails and texts were originating from Mr. J The complainant submits that despite her limited availability, she continued to manage payroll and other financial tasks for the respondent. The complainant submits that there were communication issues citing an example of where a new person had been taken on to carry out bookkeeping for the respondent and the complainant only found this out through another company. The complainant advised the hearing that matters came to a head when she received an abrupt email from Mr. J in May 2024—on her father's anniversary— This email stated that all bookkeeping was to be carried out in person from the business premises in location G and that this was effective immediately. The email also stated that this full-time position was also open to the complainant if she wished to apply for same. The complainant told the hearing that this email came as a complete shock to her and that she felt deeply disrespected after 17 years of loyal service. She submits that the respondent was well aware that she could not take on a full time in person role at that time due to her caring responsibilities and also due to the fact that she was at that time also employed by another company on a 3-day week basis. The complainant submits that this amounts to a constructive dismissal in circumstances where the respondent knew she could not carry out the role on a full time in person basis. The complainant submits that she responded to the email of May 2024 raising issues in respect of her contract etc and advised the hearing that she did not carry out any work for the respondent after that date. The complainant submits that she did not receive any response to this email. The complainant’s case is that she was constructively dismissed by the respondent. The respondent advised the hearing that here was no dismissal and that the complainant ended her own employment in September 2024 when she contacted Revenue to remove herself from the respondent’s employment. The respondent stated that the email of 25th of May 2024 put forward a suggestion to Ms. F and asked her for her thoughts but that she did not reply to this request but instead decided to go the legal route and lodged a complaint with the WRC. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant commenced her employment with GBP in February 2008 and finished her employment on 30 September 2016 and received her full entitlements. The respondent witness Mr. J went on to state that the complainant arranged her own redundancy from GBP and started her new employment with Jump Lanes Galway on 3rd October 2016 and that she never missed out on a single day's pay. The respondent stated that the complainant was not dismissed from Jump Lanes Galway but that she decided to terminate her employment with them after the email of 25 May 2024. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant was initially employed on a full-time basis but that throughout the years, at Ms. F's own request she reduced her hours. Mr. J stated that the complainant also took on another position with Green Fields Fruit and was then working between the two companies. The complainant advised the hearing that she was currently working for Green Fields fruits on a 3-day week basis. Mr, J advised the hearing that Ms. F is incorrect in her assertion that GBP went into receivership and he clarified that it was only certain units in GBP which went into receivership. Mr. J stated that at that time, the complainant was on a 3-day week, and the office position was still very much needed and open to her to continue working. Mr. J stated that Ms. F received a redundancy lump sum at the time which she had orchestrated herself. Mr. J stated that he placed his entire trust in Ms. F when it came to admin and bookkeeping and working in the best interests of the companies. He stated that he never hovered over her or micromanaged the office as he understood she had everything under control. Mr. J stated that he realizes now that this was to his detriment. Mr J added that pretty much all of the communication between Ms. F and himself was verbal. Mr. J stated that the complainant had been a very good worker and very diligent initially but that things changed when she began working from home and reduced to part time hours. Mr. J stated that there were many mistakes and inconsistencies in the company books which caused a lot of problems, financial and otherwise. Mr. J added that in March 2024 he ended up having to outsource and contract professional bookkeepers to audit and tidy up the accounts, as there were a large number of discrepancies. Mr. J advised the hearing that Ms. F was not overly forthcoming with assistance in this process and stated that she was quite abrupt to the people involved. He stated that It was necessary to tidy up the accounts as they were severely lacking and required attention. Mr. J advised the hearing that Ms. F had initially started to work from home during covid and that It was her own decision not to come back to the office which she now states in her claim was on the basis that her parents needed full time care. Mr. J noted that the complainant has expressed disappointment in him emailing her on her father's anniversary but adds that he was not aware that was her father's anniversary, the same way she would not be aware of his parents' anniversaries. Mr J also advised the hearing that Ms. F never came into the office to provide assistance or training to Ms. L despite her promises to do so. Mr, J stated that Ms. F was well aware that the bookkeeping was not in order, but he added that a lot of these conversations happened verbally by phone. Mr. J told the hearing that Ms. F was not easily contactable, and that most conversations were had at a time convenient to her. Mr. J told the hearing that Ms. F had contacted him on many occasions on Sunday night around 8pm when she would text and ask him to "do the honours" which meant leaving his house and going to the business park to turn on the computer in the office so she could organize wages, Mr. J stated that these texts could come at any time, mainly after office hours and primarily on weekends. Mr. J stated that he always obliged her and often went into the office only to find on occasions that the computer was in fact turned on, but that Ms. F needed to access the bank account for administrative purposes which required fobs and security codes etc. Mr. J told the hearing that, during the course of the audit they discovered that Bord Gais had been overpaid by €7000.00 which they eventually recouped after a lot of hard work and loss of time. Mr. J state that Ms. F's assertion that he told her to estimate the readings in this regard is totally without foundation and that any conversation around meter readings would tend to be that the ESB estimate their readings until confirmed by the customer. Mr. J referred to Ms. F s claim regarding a lack of communication and stated that Ms. F proceeded to correspond with Mr. A and only Mr. A and that Ms. F did not engage with anybody else. Mr. J advised the hearing that the "new accounts staff' the complainant refers to are the accountancy agency who came in to review the accounts as the accounts were not being kept up to date and the company was accruing fines and penalties every year. This was a serious but necessary exercise and highlights the inconsistencies accumulated over the years. Mr. J advised the hearing that the new accounts staff sought a tax clearance from revenue following which historical bookkeeping deficiencies came to light yet again. Mr. J stated that these taxes had been paid but not entered on revenue and that the situation was corrected eventually by the new accounting staff. Mr. J states that there was no notice given to the complainant because the position remained open to Ms. F. He added that holiday payments and final wage issued after this complaint came in as her. Her last day of employment was taken from her complaint form as the position was still available to her. Mr. J added that after becoming aware of Ms. F's finishing date from reading the WRC complaint form, his daughter Ms. B contacted Ms. F again and tried to engage with her regarding holiday pay as Mr. J himself at this time, was still in ICU and unaware of the complaint Mr. J concluded by saying that Ms. F abandoned her job without providing statutory notice and that any outstanding wages or holiday pay were fully settled once confirmed. I note from the evidence adduced that there was no grievance raised by the complainant regarding her employment and that the complainant did not exhaust the internal procedures. This questions the reasonableness of the complainant. I note the respondent’s position that the letter of 25th of May asked the complainant for her thoughts and that the complainant did not engage in relation to this. The testimony of both parties at the hearing indicates that the complainant did not engage further with the respondent after the letter of 25th of May except to raise issues in respect of her contract and holiday pay. From her own testimony the complainant confirmed that she did not engage with the grievance procedure . I also note that the complainant in her evidence stated that she could not return to full time work for the respondent due to her caring responsibilities but that she also added that she works 3 days a week for another company. While I accept the complainant’s assertion that the respondent’s letter of the 25th of May was not reasonable I also note the circumstances surrounding the letter as outlined by the respondent and that the complainant following receipt of the letter failed to carry out any further work for the respondent following this letter and so the complainant herself did not act reasonably. I also note that the complainant did not submit a grievance in this regard but rather made a decision to immediately cease working for the respondent. In examining this matter in the context of the test of reasonableness, I am mindful of the finding in the case of McCormack v Dunnes Stores UD 1421/2008 where the Employment Appeals Tribunal noted the high burden of proof on an employee in a case of constructive dismissal, including the need to demonstrate that all internal grievance procedures had been exhausted. Thus, it is incumbent on the complainant to demonstrate that the actions of the employer were so unreasonable that she was left with no option but to resign, she must also demonstrate that she has acted reasonably and exhausted all internal procedures before taking the step of resigning her employment. In resigning in circumstances that a complainant asserts amount to constructive dismissal, I am satisfied that such a complainant must act reasonably. This includes affording her employer an adequate and reasonable opportunity to address and remedy any grievance/issue. In addition, I note the finding in Conway v Ulster Bank UD474/1981 in which it was held that a Complainant had not acted reasonably by resigning before having substantially utilised the relevant internal procedures. I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced here that the complainant in this case has failed to demonstrate that the ‘’ employer's conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.” In addition, I am satisfied that the complainant in this case failed to fully engage with her employer before submitting her resignation and did not afford the respondent the opportunity to deal with matters accordingly I find that she did not act reasonably in so doing. Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced, it is not possible to conclude that the complainant in this case had nowhere else to turn other than to consider herself dismissed Furthermore, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the Complainant in this case has failed to establish that there was a fundamental breach of her contract which would meet the requirements of ‘the contract test’. She has also failed to establish that the respondent’s behaviour was so unreasonable that it left the complainant with no alternative but to consider herself dismissed i.e., or ‘the reasonableness test’. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded . |
Decision:
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-008 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007. |
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.
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007, accordingly I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-009 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007. |
Decision:
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.
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007, accordingly I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065924-010 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007. |
Decision:
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.
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-007, accordingly I declare this claim to be not well-founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 19 of the Carer's Leave Act 2001 | CA-00065924-011 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at hearing asserted that the respondent in an email dated 25th of May 2024 directed that she return to work full time on an in-person basis. The complainant submits that this was not possible as she was at the time also caring for her mother as well as working in another job on a 3-day week basis. The complainant submits that the respondent was aware that she had caring responsibilities which would prevent her from attending the office on a full time in person basis. The respondent at the hearing denied any knowledge of the complainants caring responsibilities but stated that they were aware that she was working 3 days a week for another company. The complainant advised the hearing that she had not requested carers leave. This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 19 of the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001 The facts are that no formal application for Carers Leave was submitted and consequently the Complainant was not refused Carer’s leave. In these circumstances I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065924-012 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) sets out the minimum notice period as follows: “(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, The Complainant submits that she worked for the within respondent from 2016 having previously worked for Gorey Business Park Limited which she submits went into receivership in 2016 and following which she was made redundant before being re-employed in a different company Jump Lanes Galway Limited which she submits is owned by the same respondent who was represented at the hearing by Mr. J. The complainant stated that she was employed by this respondent for 8 years. The complainant has submitted that she was constructively dismissed by Mr. J when he issued her an email on 25t of May 2024 asking her to return to work full time to an in-person role. A separate finding has been made in respect of the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. I am satisfied from the evidence adduce that the complainant was employed by the named respondent for a period of 8 years. I note that an employee who has been employed for a period of between 5 and 10 years is entitled to a minimum notice of the equivalent of 6 weeks’ pay or pay in lieu thereof. I am satisfied form the evidence adduced that the within complaint is well founded, and I direct the the Respondent to pay the complainant the equivalent of 6 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. |
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.
I declare this claim to be well founded and accordingly I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the equivalents of 6weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065924-013 | 05/09/2024 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-012. |
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.
This is a duplicate claim as the matter has been dealt with in the decision in respect of claim number CA-00065924-012. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well-founded. |
Dated: 19th of September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|