Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sylwester  Pilarski

Oakwood Leisure Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  The claimant represented himself

 Padraig Kelleher, Seamus Kelleher

Emer O’ Callaghan Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00053672-001

11/11/2022

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

CA-00053672-002

11/11/2022

The claimant was employed as a truck driver with the respondent from the 4th.July 2019  and submitted that he was unfairly dismissed while on sick leave on the 13th.May 2022.The claimant further submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 for failing to furnish him with a written statement of his terms of employment. The respondent denied that the claimant had been dismissed , submitted that the claimant voluntarily terminated his own employment and asserted that the company had met their obligations in terms of furnishing the claimant with written terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint of unfair dismissal was contested by the respondent who submitted that the claimant voluntarily left the employment . This was disputed by the claimant .

 Evidence of Mr.P K  for the respondent

The respondent submitted into evidence a warning letter dated the 22n.Sept.2021. This correspondence related to the removal of a boat without permission following which it was submitted that the claimant was put on record that the issuing of any further warnings could potentially lead to the claimants dismissal.The respondent submitted into evidence a document from the company administrator asserting that the claimant went on sick leave on the 25th.Jan. 2022 but they had no return date as yet from the claimant’s doctor.It was submitted that this document demonstrated that the company considered the complainant to be in employment well after he ceased to work due to sick leave.

In his direct evidence Mr.Kelleher referred to negative interactions between the claimant and his colleagues  and submitted copies of Whatsapp messages in support of this contention.

Mr. Kelleher asserted that when they interviewed the claimant initially for the role of truck driver , he was asked if he had a criminal record – according to the witness the claimant  lied in response  and suggested that the claimant had committed drugs and theft offences. The witness said that the complainant was employed under false pretences – it was submitted that  initially he got on well with customers and it was only later in his employment they realised his shortcomings. The witness said the claimant was very short tempered and fell out with staff and referenced abusive Whattsapp messages. It was submitted that the claimant was bullying staff. A row  arose between the claimant and another staff member – the witness said the time frame for this was 2022 and they decided they wanted to give him another chance. It was submitted that both protagonists were unprofessional and it was difficult to determine whose fault it was. It was submitted that the Manager Mr.O C – tried to manage the situation .The witness  said they committed to paying the claimant full wages for the month of January 2022 while awaiting his sick certs. The witness indicated that at that time  the  relationship  between the parties were amicable .

The respondent advised that a  discussion with the manager ensued about the claimant’s recovery from a hand injury – the expectation was that the claimant would be back on the 8th of March 2022. – he had been advised not to engage in heavy work. The witness said they had plenty of work available – it was difficult to recruit drivers on waste transportation – the witness said he thought  he would get loyalty and gratitude from the claimant- he had helped him with his application for housing  and he expected the good will would be reciprocated. He insisted the company were trying to help the claimant and keep a job for him.The witness said when the claimant did not return on the 8th.March- it wasn’t a problem – the claimant had incurred a serious hand injury and they were willing to wait. The witness again referred to what he described as abusive Whatsapp  messages.The witness said a lot came to life after the claimant left – he contended his goodwill had been abused and the claimant was never fired.

The respondent asserted   that when the claimant came into the office on the 13th.May 2022 he had engaged in a burst of aggression on  the Whatsapp group and asserted that the claimant  was openly abusing the Manager .The respondent said that the  company continued to pay for the company phone .It was contended that the claimant was very aggressive and intimidating with the manager – according to the respondent , the claimant said he wouldn’t work with the Manager and would not be returning to the company .The Administrator contacted the accountant and reported that the complainant had left.The company paid for the phone to the end of May on the off chance that the claimant might come back – they kept the job open as long as they could according to the respondent.

When questioned by the undersigned if he considered having a meeting  with the claimant directly after the alleged incident on the 13th.May   the respondent replied he did consider it but the claimant had intimidated the manager and staff were afraid of him –  according to the witness , the claimant  then asked a total stranger off the street to approach the company about  completing  a DSP form and the administrator said she could not do that. The respondent said he did not write to the claimant to confirm the termination of employment as he believed it would escalate matters. The respondent denied  receiving any letters from the claimant post the termination of employment  and insisted that he did everything he could  to hold onto the claimant .

Under cross examination the respondent  was asked  by the claimant when did he learn of the complainant’s neurological problems , the witness responded that he was not a medical professional and when he is told about an illness he does not go into details. Mr.K said he told the claimant he would hold his job for him as long as possible – he said he had a duty of care to his staff.An exchange ensued between the claimant and the witness about their respective positions in relation to this period of illness -with the witness criticising the employers version of events and the respondent’s witness denying that he had any case to answer  .I find the introduction of this subject was not relevant to the case before me as  that these events occurred  some 3 years before the complaints were received by the WRC  and they  were not referenced in the claimant’s comprehensive complaint form  or in his written submissions to the WRC.

The claimant said  he wanted his contract , the company training records and footage of the meeting on the 13th.May 2022.The claimant denied that he was ever  in the office on that date.The complainant put it to Mr.K that that there were no notes , no training records , no records of a verbal warning and no evidence of a meeting on the 13th.May 2022.

Evidence of Mr.O’C Manager

In his direct evidence the manager Mr.O.C.  stated that  when he started with the company in 2021  he established that there were a lot of changes required – he said  the claimant had a problem with everything he tried to change. When the claimant was issued with a verbal warning , the witness said that  Mr.K  said we will give him a chance. The witness said staff relations were very strained and morale was very low – according to Mr.O’C  the claimant kept giving out in the Polish language. The witness said that while Mr.K was on  leave he asked the claimant to get off the Whatsapp group .In describing the events of the 13th.May 2022  the manager stated  that he was sitting with the administrator , the claimant was roaring and shouting and he was afraid of him – according to the witness the claimant said he would not work under his ( the managers) regime and that he was quitting. The manager said there was a problem every day with the claimant – he said that the claimant  seemed to want to be the  manager. When the claimant was issued with a verbal warning at the end of November 2021 , the witness wanted to suspend him and carry out an investigation  but Mr P K said  to give him a chance.

Under cross examination , the witness said  he went through all of the company HR documentation on staff including Heath & Safety and manual handling – he went through the contracts and the company would keep a copy .The witness said that the complainant would not deal with him and he left matters to Mr.PK.

 The claimant asked Mr.O’C when was he given a verbal warning and the witness responded that  he spoke with the claimant and Mr.W after the manager  heard reports of an assault - he told both staff members he could not tolerate their behaviour in the workplace. He said  that he told both the claimant and the other staff member if that behaviour was  repeated they would be suspended.

The claimant denied that he ever received a verbal warning .The witness was asked by the claimant why T resigned and the witness replied that this was a matter between T and the company. When asked if  bad language was used , the witness replied that the claimant and T were shouting about him in Polish language that was abusive .The witness said the claimant was using language to his colleagues against him( the manager).The Manager said  the claimant had no respect for him.

When asked if there was CCTV footage of the events of the 13th.May , the manager said he would not be aware of that .

The witness was asked  by the claimant when did the claimant sign his contract – the witness said he did not look at the start dates and the administrator would deal with that matter.

The complainant put it to the  witness that everything he said was a lie.

Evidence of Ms.B Administrator

In her direct evidence the Administrator  Ms.B said the claimant was issued with a verbal warning on the 10th.Dec 2021 . The complainant was told by the manager that if  repeated behaviour occurred  further action would be taken.

The witness said the complainant went out sick in January/February 2022  and contacted the company to say he would be returning on the 8th.March.On the 11th.May , there were calls to have the claimant to be taken off the Whatsapp  group –  even though the claimant was out sick , he continued to participate in the Whatsapp group.The witness said that on  the 13th.May , the claimant called to the office  started giving out and said he was not working for the manager  and  he quit.The witness emailed the accountant to appraise her of this.

Under cross examination by the claimant the witness said that staff contracts were filed away –  she said the complainant told her that he had already done a manual handling course –  the witness said this happened the week the claimant was hired. She said the claimant was interviewed by P&S Kelleher and that she printed off the contract as it was part of her job.The witness said the contract was filed away.

At the final hearing on the 20th.March 2026 , the respondent’s representative presented the following submission:

1. The Respondent is Oakwood Leisure Limited, a private company limited by shares having its registered office at Bellmount Mill, Crookstown, Cork, P14HN22. This is the correct and only legal title of the Respondent.

 2. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 July 2019.

 3. The Adjudication Officer is respectfully reminded of the witness testimony already provided in this case by Ms.B (the Respondent office manager in July 2019) i.e., that the Complainant was provided with a contractual statement of employment within the meaning of section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) and he failed/refused and/or neglected to return a counter signed copy of same.

 4. The Adjudication Officer is further directed to open correspondence issued on behalf of the Respondent on even date to the Complainant.

 5. The Complainant resigned from his employment on 13 May 2022. The Adjudication Officer is respectfully reminded of the witness testimony already provided in this case by Laura Burke (the Respondent office manager in July 2019) i.e. that his resignation was unequivocal; the Complainant clearly verbally stated that he would not work with and/or for JO’C (the Respondent manager at the relevant time) and further stated that he would not be returning to the company. [Please also see page 34 of the attached booklet].

 6. The Respondent accepted this resignation and thereafter, said resignation was actioned by the Respondent i.e. the Respondent directed the payroll provider Eric Cotter & Co. Accountants to give effect to the cessation of the Complainant’s employment which was recorded with Revenue as at 13 May 2022.

 7. The Complainant outlines the following matters in his Single Complaint Form (lodged on 11 November 2022): (i)  that he sent a “friend” to the Respondent’s premises on 19 September 2022 with a Working Family Payment Application Form for completion by the Respondent. The Respondent declined, noting that he was no longer employed;

(ii) that as a result of the Complainant’s engagement with the Department of Social Protection in or about October 2022 recited as “a representative at my Local Social Welfare Office” wherein it appears the Complainant was informed that consequent to his resignation on 13 May 2022 he was at that time disentitled to certain social protection benefits and/or entitlements; and that he wrote to the Respondent in October 2022 seeking reasons for the alleged (but denied) ‘termination’ of this employment.

In respect of the matters raised at 7 (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the Respondent stipulates as to same and does not require further verification of said matters. The Respondent however, for all of the foregoing reasons and those traversed hereunder, does not stipulate that a ‘termination’ of employment occurred within the meaning, actually or perceived, as asserted by the Complainant. The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant resigned on two distinct occasions. Any termination or cessation of employment was initiated by the Complainant.

 8. On 21 October 2022, the Respondent received the Complainant’s letter [hereinbefore outlined at 7(iii) above] which they regarded as the Complainant rescinding his resignation as at 13 May 2022. As a result, the Complainant was re-registered as an  employee as and from 14 May 2022 until 20 April 2023. As the Complainant remained absent on sick leave, he did not receive any pay.

9. The Respondent notes that from approximately the third week of January 2022, the Complainant was absent from work due to illness and did not return to work for the Respondent Employer.

 10. On the 14 April 2023, the Complainant emailed his Respondent Employer stating “I am done with this company from 17/04/23. Please take me off the payroll list”.

 11. The Respondent accepted this further unequivocal resignation and said resignation was actioned by the Respondent i.e. the Respondent directed its payroll provider Eric Cotter & Co. Accountants to process the cessation of his employment with Revenue as at 20 April 2023.

 12. The Complainant has confirmed that he suffered no recoverable financial loss (within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977, as amended and/or within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission, pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended and/or at all) during this period i.e. from 14 May 2022 until 20 April 2023 [Please see page 61 of the attached booklet].

 13. The second, unequivocal resignation was submitted on 14 April 2023 and no further proceedings having being submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission, within the knowledge, information or belief of the Respondent, as such, the Complainant is no longer within any possible statute of limitations period pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission. In summary, the Respondent respectfully submits as follows:

 A. At commencement of employment, witness testimony on behalf of the Respondent already had herein is that the Complainant was provided with a statement of employment within the meaning of section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and he failed/refused and/or neglected to return a counter signed copy of same. Further, and/or in the alternative:

 B. The Complainant unequivocally resigned his employment on two occasions. Firstly, on 13 May 2022, which was subsequently rescinded and further with effect from 17 April 2023. Further, and/or in the alternative:

 C. The Complainant has failed, refused and/or neglected to furnish evidence of any recoverable loss (within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977, as amended and/or within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission, pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended and/or at all) during this period i.e. from 14 May 2022 until 20 April 2023. Further, and/or in the alternative:

 D. On the balance of probabilities, the Complainant’s claim is not well founded.

 3 The Respondent reserves the right to adduce further evidence and/or submit further, and/or legal grounds and/or to deliver further submissions. The within outline submission and any booklet(s) delivered herewith [delivered on 19 December 2025] by JRAP O’Meara LLP, Solicitors for the Respondent, are so delivered on a strictly confidential basis and the Respondent will respectfully address the Adjudication Officer as to all matters for appropriate redaction for any publication, howsoever arising, at the commencement of any hearing, to be convened. The Complainant and his legal and/or other representatives, such as may exist, to include but not limited to any translator to be appointed, by the Workplace Relations Commission or otherwise are respectfully so notified that all information is to be treated as strictly confidential and therefore, should not be published. The Respondent will legally action any recourse available, including but not limited to, recourse in statute , at common law , at equity or howsoever arising.

In summarising her  submission the respondent’s representative reiterated that the claimant had resigned and that as previously stated in evidence by Ms.B , the claimant had been provided with a contract .She asserted that given the conflict of evidence between the 2 parties , the decision on the matter would have to be based on the balance of probabilities. It was accepted that Mr.O’C had stated in evidence that the company had been unable to produce evidence of the contract as owing to the fact that part of the company had been sold and this had resulted in the mislaying of records.

It was submitted that on the 13th.May 2022 , the claimant had spoken with the manager MrO’.C and Ms.B and had stated that he would not work with  Mr.O’C and would not return to the company.

It was submitted that any footage of the incident would have been deleted and would not have been retained and the representative referenced the company’s obligations under GDPR.It was submitted that the claimant had not sought this evidence at the time of making the complaint.It was submitted that the standard retention time for maintaining such records was 30 days.It was submitted that the material had not been sought by the claimant and  had not been requested within a reasonable length of time.

It was submitted that when the claimant wrote to the respondent on the 18th.October 2022 , the respondent interpreted the letter as a rescinding of the claimant’s resignation  and the respondent reinstated him  with effect from May 2022.This was communicated to Revenue and the Dept of Social Protection.

It was submitted that the claimant had  stated  in his letter to the WRC dated the 27th.May 2025 , that he did not incur any financial loss while on sick leave from May 2022 to April 2023 when he secured alternative employment.It was submitted that the WRC had no jurisdiction to issue any finding on deficits with respect to Social Welfare Payments.

While it was acknowledged by the respondent that the claimant was a proficient and eager worker  it was submitted that he had fallen out with colleagues and that he had health challenges.

In summing up , the respondent’s representative said that the evidence of Mr.O’C and Ms. B – who no longer worked for the company –  should be accepted when deciding on the complaint ; it was submitted that no financial loss had been incurred by the claimant .It was submitted that Ms.B’s evidence of furnishing the claimant with a contract of employment should be accepted.It  was submitted that the respondent had acted fairly.

In his complaint form the claimant asserted that he never received  a handbook or contract  of employment , that he was a truck driver / van driver and in charge of collecting tyres and was basically his own manager. He stated  that he had been on sick leave since the 25th.Jan. 2022 arising from surgery and advised that the company administrator told him he did not need to submit medical certs until he was fit to resume work. On the 19th.Sept. 2022 he requested a friend to bring DSP documentation to the company which the Administrator did not fill in and  wrote on a piece of paper back to him stating “ Syl , you’re off our payrolls , I cant fill in form because you don’t work here , Sorry”.

The claimant replied with an email on the 26th.Sept. requesting an official letter stating the exact date of his discharge from the company. He received no reply and redirected his correspondence to Mr.SK .The claimant set out a chronology of the ensuing correspondence to the respondent setting out the background to his employment and his ongoing efforts to obtain clarity on his employment status. He declared he was in shock as he had not been informed that his employment had been terminated .He stated that he had no guidance to follow as he had never been given a contract of employment or any procedures from the company .The claimant said he was later informed by Social Welfare that Revenue had recorded the termination of his employment on the 13th.May 2022.The claimant asserted that he was out sick after an operation and got dismissed without his knowledge.

On the 17th.January 2024 the claimant submitted  a written response to the respondents references to warnings which is summarised below :

First, I apologize for sending this information late. I will briefly refer to Mr. PK’s email.  I never received any verbal warning or warning on paper, I have never seen the warning that Mr. PK sent. If I had I am sure they would have sent this document with my signature. I have never received a contract; this is the first time in my life I have heard of this document. If I were to receive it, why can they not show I signed it. When it comes to the situation with W in “Mid 2020”, I think that this incident occurred in October or November of 2021, but I have nothing to back this up as my phone at the time went missing and this following text will explain this. W attacked my co-worker T and I started to video record him as Mr.SK asked me to record him behaving strangely or aggressively as Mr.SK  said this behaviour could occur. When W saw me recording, he ran to the truck, got hold of my phone and tried to hit me and pull me out of the cab. I can remember I kicked him back and shut the door and he left. During this incident I obviously lost my phone, which the next day I tried finding using a “Find my phone” application on a different device, the ringing came from a compressed cube of tires that W and another employee were making in the warehouse the previous day.

The situation dated 16/09/2021 at Hammond Lane was different than described in the email, while collecting Tyres at that location the van driver Mr.K  called MrT, my co-worker, and asked if we had room for this engine on the truck, he explained the engine was lying next to the tyres the previous day and that he was meant to take it but had no room on the van. Mr.T had understood that Mr.K had asked the day before, so we thought nothing of it and put it on the truck. I think it was the next day, but I am not sure, Mr.PK  called and asked about the engine. After explaining the situation, I called Mr.K and asked him to take the engine back, he took it back and apologized and that was the end of that matter.

 The situation as described on 13/05/2022 -  at that time I was in bad physical health condition and practically did not leave the house, only 3 visits to the doctor and to the hospital, the shop for necessities. If this did really happen then I would really like to see CCTV footage as obviously if an incident like this happened, then they would have kept the footage. I also would like to add why, since I “Resigned from the job myself.” When I texted and emailed on multiple occasions asking why I was fired. They didn't answer and when I sent a letter and email asking why and when they fired me. I never got a response to this and then I received a Revenue notification that I was working at this company again on 26/10/2022.

In response to requests from the undersigned . about the matter of mitigation of loss and availability for work the claimant stated as follows   in a memo of the 1st.February 2024.

“ Following the last hearing on 10th of December, the judge has asked me to pass on this information. She asked me how much money I lose due to  this. I am not sure how much money I lost out on. I remember in 2019/2020 working full time and my partner was unemployed so I got €120 help from social welfare weekly. So I think in 2022 when my partner was working part time and I was on illness benefit I think we would have gotten that from the social welfare weekly or more. And the confusion I caused in the social welfare which wasn’t my fault, I never received any extra money from the social welfare like I was previously getting, with STR Recycling having me employed one minute and then not the next caused a lot of stress and did not help with my mental health issues, it caused emotional distress. And because I was re employed on the 26th October 2022 out of nowhere, my illness benefit was seized for multiple weeks and I had to borrow money from friends as I could not afford to pay for my bills or basic needs for my children. Apologies for the late reply, I have had a busy few weeks with Christmas. If there is any documents I am missing that were asked for please let me know, Disclosed are: 1st and 2nd is my email I sent 18th October 2022. 3rd is my Certificate that STR re employed me. 4th is following the document from above, letter from Social Welfare about me being re employed.

In his direct evidence , the claimant said if he had resigned from work why did the company not reply to his phone calls , texts and letters asking for clarity and explanation for his dismissal.He stated he was put back on the payroll in October .

On the eve of the final hearing on the 20th.March 2026 , the claimant made  the following submission:

“I did not go to the office in Victoria Cross on the 13th of May 2022 and tell them I quit, this never happened and there has to this date been no valid evidence from the defendant shown to back up this claim. I am still wondering why I was reemployed in October 2022, (Patrick claimed at one of the hearings, that this never happened) and I showed evidence of this with a revenue letter. This conveniently happened after I emailed and sent a letter asking “When and why did i get let go from the job?”. From the 3rd week of January 2022 to 17th April 2023, i was on sick leave from a surgery on my left hand that went wrong. On the 17th of April 2023, was the ONE and ONLY time I quit from this job. The truth is Yes, I replied to the judge saying i had no financial loss to do with this situation, because I did not know how to prove how hard i tried to get Working Family Payment, The first time applied for it, it turned out i wasn’t employed (when STR let me go without my knowledge), Then when i re filled out the forms (STR had re employed me again without my knowledge, once again) and after that i didnt try to apply again due to frustration and embarrassment. This re employment also put my sick leave to a halt, which meant while i was waiting for it to be reinstated, i struggled heavily financially and had to rely a lot on my friends. My partner was working part time at the time, so we would have gotten around €100 a week for working family payment, which never happened due to all of this confusion, So i did loose out on an average of around €5,000 in the year this was going on. I also found out that, according to the Irish Employment Act 1997, applicable in 2015, annual leave also accrues while on sick leave, so about 15 months on sick leave, so about 25 days paid annual leave, which i never received either. 1 I also can’t put a price on the mental and psychological tolls this entire situation took on me, already struggling with many mental health conditions, this worsened them by a lot.The claimant referred to exchanges between the parties regarding a possible settlement of the matter .

At the final hearing of the matter on the 20th.March 2026 when asked to clarify the status of the text message furnished to the WRC and dated the 14th.April 2023 wherein the claimant stated to the respondent :

“I am done with this company from 17.04.2023 – please take me off the payroll list “

The claimant responded that he visited his GP at this time and the GP  advised that he was fit to return to work .The claimant said he decided that he did not want to return to work with the company and so he decided to leave and sourced another job for himself.

The claimant said his daughter could corroborate his evidence that he was not in the office on the 13th.May 2022 – he maintained he was  feeling unwell  at this time .

The claimant said that if he had been in the position of the respondent he would have recorded the evidence .The claimant said that the respondent had previously denied that the claimant  had been reinstated.The claimant said that if he had decided to leave why would he have written to the respondent and asked for answers about his employment status.He asked why was he reinstated if he dismissed himself from work.When asked by the undersigned when he became aware that he was reinstated , the claimant said he  was informed of this   by the Citizen’s Information Centre who looked up  Revenue records.The claimant said the advice he received from the CIC  was that he had been unfairly dismissed.

In summing up the claimant asserted that he had never been furnished with a contract of employment and the respondent had produced no evidence to support their assertion that he had been given a contract.The claimant said the respondent had produced no evidence of the claimant attending the office on the 13th.May2022.The claimant asserted that the witnesses for the respondent did not tell the truth. He said he believed all of the witnesses had lied under oath.The claimant said he never received the warning  dated the 22nd.Sept.2021 that had been introduced into evidence by the respondent   and that he was given a pay rise at the end of 2021 by the respondent.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the polarised positions of the parties with respect to both alleged contraventions.

Terms of Employment (Information)Act 1994.

I have considered the evidence presented by the company manager and administrator  ,the respondent Mr.PK  and the claimant’s direct evidence as well as the written submissions received from both parties.I found the claimant’s evidence on the matter of whether or not he was furnished with written terms and conditions of employment  to be consistent throughout all  hearings. While I acknowledge the assertions of Ms.B and Mr.O.C that their records were mislaid owing to an office move , no convincing explanation was advanced for not being able to at least present a standard template of the contracts and handbooks  allegedly issued to the company employees.These documents were referenced in the company’s warning that was allegedly  issued to the claimant on the 22nd.September 2021  but were never submitted into evidence..The claimant has consistently denied ever receiving the alleged warning letter of the 22nd.Sept. 2021.

 Accordingly , in light of the absence of any  documentary evidence to corroborate the respondent’s assertions that the claimant or any of his colleagues  was/were  furnished with written terms and conditions of employment  ,  I find on the balance of probabilities  the claimants evidence  was more credible and accordingly I uphold the complaint .I require the respondent to  pay the claimant 4 weeks remuneration (€2,520) for this breach of the Act.

Unfair Dismissals Acts , 1977-2015.

It is clear from the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties that there is a significant conflict of evidence with respect to the matter of whether as alleged by the respondent the claimant voluntarily terminated his own employment on the 13th.May 2022 or as alleged by the claimant he was unfairly dismissed on the 13th.May 2022 when he was removed from the payroll and the respondent failed thereafter to respond to his requests for clarification on his employment status when he sought same in an email to Ms.B on the 19th.Sept. 2022   in a telephone call to Ms.B on the 29th.September , in 2 later messages to Mr.SK on the 29th.Sept. and in a letter dated the 18th.Oct. 2022 to Mr.S K and Mr.P K.

If as alleged by the respondent the claimant terminated his own employment, the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses suggests it was a “heat of the moment “ incident. Had that been the case , there would have been an onus on the employer to carry out an investigation particularly so when the claimant was on long term sick leave.

This is specifically addressed by Dr.Mary Redmond in her book Dismissal Law in Ireland , where she writes as follows at paragraph [21.24]: -

• “When unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to an employer, and are so understood by the employer, generally it is safe to conclude that the employee has resigned. However, context is everything. A resignation should not be taken at face value where in the circumstances, there were heated exchanges or where the employee was unwell at the time. The intellectual make up of the employee may also be relevant.”

Authority for this is also found in Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Linehan [1992] IRLR 156,  paragraph 31:-

• “If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment, personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (being jostled into a decision) and indeed the intellectual makeup of the individual may be relevant (see Barclay [1983] IRLR 313). These we refer to as “special circumstances”. Where special circumstances arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employers risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the “special circumstances” the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively.”

Having considered the entirety of the evidence and the documentation submitted into evidence by both parties , I find on the balance of probabilities that the claimant’s version of events with respect to the alleged dismissal  is more convincing than that of the respondent on the following grounds :

The claimant categorically refuted the respondent’s account of the 13th.May where he allegedly and  according to the respondent unequivocally resigned from his employment .He has argued that no evidence was advanced to corroborate the respondent’s and the respondents witnesses account of his behaviour on the day and the alleged   termination of his employment.I note that the respondent did not provide any evidence to verify that the claimant attended the office on that day – by way of a clock in system, attendance records  or video footage. No minutes or contemporaneous  written records  were presented to validate the witness’ account of the meeting at which the respondent claimed the claimant voluntarily terminated his own employment.The respondent’s witnesses submitted a joint  statement dated the 11th.July 2023  regarding the event of the 13th.May 2022 –   some 14 months after the event.

In Ms.B’s response (19th.Sept.2022) to the claimant’s request to complete a form regarding Working Family Payment , she states

“Syl you are off our payrolls , I can’t fill in form because you don’t work here , Sorry ..”

There is no reference in this correspondence to the claimant’s behaviour on the 13th.May 2022 or indeed to a resignation.

The respondent has failed to produce any compelling evidence to justify their unwillingness to respond to the claimant’s numerous requests of September 2022 for clarity on his employment status.When Mr.PK was questioned about this in his direct evidence , he replied that they did not want matters to escalate.

The respondent failed to respond to the claimant when the respondent was under cross examination, at the Dec. 2024 hearing when he was asked why he was reemployed if he voluntarily resigned.

At the final hearing of the case on the   20th.March 2026              , the respondent contended that they reinstated the claimant in October 2022 following receipt of the claimant’s letter of the 18th.October 2022- which they took to be a rescinding by him of his resignation.I note the  term rescinding was never referenced  in evidence at any previous hearing.

When questioned by the undersigned as to whether the respondent confirmed their  acceptance of the rescinding of the claimant to him either verbally or by way of documentation , the respondent was unable  to offer any  convincing explanation for failing to inform the claimant that he was reinstated.

 When Mr.PK gave direct evidence at the hearing of Dec. 10th.2024 , he was asked by the undersigned why the company had failed to reply  to the claimant’s letter of the 18th.Oct. 2022  wherein the claimant sought clarity and challenged  his allegedly revised employment status , Mr.PK replied on 2 occasions that he had never received any letters from the claimant .This is completely at variance with the assertions made at the final hearing  to the effect that the letter was viewed  as a rescinding of the claimant’s resignation and  as a consequence he was reinstated.No  compelling explanation was offered for failing to advise the claimant that he was reinstated.The claimant gave evidence  at the  final hearing that he learned through the staff of Citizen’s Information that he was reinstated  when they checked Revenue records when he went to them for advice on how to proceed.   I find in light of the foregoing inconsistencies  and given the absence of relevant documentary evidence   I am obliged to conclude  that the  claimant’s version of events to be more convincing than that of the respondent  .I further  find that it was not unreasonable for the claimant to consider himself dismissed on the 13th.May 2022  in circumstances where he had been removed from the payroll in or around that date  and the respondent had failed to respond to his numerous requests for clarification on his employment status. I find the dismissal was effected without any investigation and without affording the claimant fair procedures . Accordingly  I uphold the complaint of unfair dismissal.

I accept the  respondent’s representatives  submissions on loss of earnings.It is clear from the claimant’s own evidence that he was unavailable for work   from Jan. 2022 – April 2023  when he obtained alternative employment.As referenced by the respondent’s representative , I do not have jurisdiction to address the shortfall in income referred to by  the claimant in the context of payments made by the Dept. of Social Protection .

Section 7(1)(c)(ii) of the Unfair Dismissals Act  provides that

“ if the employee incurred no such financial loss , payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any , but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed  calculated as aforesaid ) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances …”.

Accordingly I am limited to consider compensation of no more than 4 weeks .

I require the respondent to pay the claimant €2,520 compensation for his unfair dismissal.