ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00054461

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  13/08/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and  in particular the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint made. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will consider any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.

The Complainant’s complaint is that she was constructively dismissed which means that the onus is on the Complainant to demonstrate that her Employer’s conduct or behaviour was such that she had no reasonable alternative other than to tender her resignation. The burden of proof shifts to the Complainant in a situation of constructive dismissal. The Complainant must demonstrate that she was forced to terminate her contract of employment in circumstances which, because of the conduct of the Employer, the Employee was entitled to terminate her employment, or it was reasonable for the Employee to terminate his employment (as defined in Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997).

It is well established that there are two tests for constructive dismissal in the statutory definition provided. Either one of these tests can be invoked by the Employee.

The first is the contract test where an employee will argue an entitlement to terminate the contract of employment because of a fundamental breach of the employment contract on the part of the Employer. The breach must be a significant breach going to the root of the employment contract.

Secondly, the Employee may allege that he satisfies the 1977 Act’s “reasonableness”test. That is that the conduct of the Employer was such that it was reasonable for her to resign. That is to say that the Employer has conducted it’s affairs so unreasonably that the Employee cannot be expected to put up with it any longer and is justified in leaving. The test is objective. The test requires that the conduct of both Employer and Employee be considered. The conduct of the parties as a whole and the cumulative effect must be looked at. The conduct of the Employer that is being complained of, must be unreasonable and without proper cause, and its effect on the Employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the Employee cannot be expected to put up with it.

In this particular instance, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed from her place of employment (by reason of constructive dismissal) wherein she had worked for in excess of one year and where the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 25th of September 2024) issued within six months of her constructive dismissal, I am satisfied that I (an Adjudication Officer so appointed) have jurisdiction to hear the within matter.

In a case of Constructive Dismissal, there is a generally accepted proposition that the Employee should engage and exhaust internal mechanisms which might be available in a given workplace before tendering a resignation. I would always have regard for the seminal Employment Appeals Tribunal case of  UD 474/1981 Margot Conway  -v-   Ulster Bank Limited  wherein the Tribunal stated:

“The Tribunal considers that the Appellant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having substantially utilized the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints. An elaborate grievance procedure existed but the Appellant did not use it. It is not for the Tribunal to say whether using this procedure would have produced a decision more favourable to her, but it is possible.”

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

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.

Dated:   16-09-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Penelope McGrath

Key Words: