Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pawel  Piwowarozyk

The Wild Atlantic Good Food Ltd trading as The Lemon Leaf

Representatives

In person

Peninsula Business Services Ireland Ltd

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-00067908-001

05/12/2024

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

CA-00067908-002

05/12/2024

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a head chef from 2nd March 2023 to 8th September 2024. He submitted two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 5th December 2024. One complaint alleges that the complainant was unfairly dismissed, and the other complaint alleges that the complainant resigned and relates to a complaint of an alleged constructive unfair dismissal.

The matter was first heard at adjudication on 2nd September 2025. The complainant was unrepresented and had not had the opportunity to review the respondent’s submission prior to the hearing. It was also clarified to the complainant that he may wish to consider his complaints as submitted as he claimed that he was dismissed as well as claiming that he had resigned. The complainant was given an adjournment to consider these points, to review the respondents’ documentation and to furnish a submission in relation to the complaint he was pursuing.

The matter was rescheduled and an adjudication hearing took place on 18th December 2025. The complainant confirmed that he was withdrawing the unfair dismissal complaint (CA-00067908-001) and was pursuing the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal (CA-00067908-002) confirming the position that he had resigned from his employment for the benefit of his health and personal wellbeing.

Issues leading to resignation.

The complainant is claiming that he was subject to a constructive unfair dismissal. The complainant stated that the respondent breached the implied contractual terms of mutual trust and confidence. The complainant outlined several issues that led to his resignation. The complainant stated that he was solely responsible for the department that generated over 95% of the company revenue. The complainant stated that he worked for almost three weeks on one occasion and four weeks on another without a break due to staff shortages and despite the respondent being aware of the situation, they did nothing to assist, which was a complete disregard for the complainant’s health and wellbeing. The complainant contends that his health began to suffer and when he sought time off to seek medical attention for a shoulder injury, the respondent failed to support his request and instead queried his commitment to the business. The complainant further contends that the respondent breached his contract in relation to his notice period and when his employment ended, he found himself in a situation where he was homeless, unemployed and dealing with significant health issues.

The complainant outlined that there were several issues that were not being addressed by the respondent: inadequate staffing levels as well as a lack of preparation in respect of the front of house service. The complainant stated that he raised the issues several times but was met with a complete lack of understanding and support. The complainant stated that the respondent failed in its duty of care to him as an employee and having exhausted all avenues for dialogue in relation to issues of dissatisfaction to him, the complainant felt he had no option but to resign for the sake of his health. The complainant acknowledged that he did not raise a grievance on the basis that he had made several attempts to address issues with the respondent but to no avail.

Evidence

In addition to his written responses to the respondent’s written submissions, that were lodged in advance of the initial hearing in September 2025, the complainant also gave evidence by affirmation at the adjudication hearing. The witness stated that the business initially opened during the day and there was pressure from the respondent to open in the evenings – possibly for three or four evenings per week as well as introducing a takeaway service. The witness stated that the kitchen was understaffed yet he was responsible for the menus, the budgets and the prices for the proposed evening openings as well as the day menus. The witness stated that due to the issue of understaffing, he worked for three weeks in a row in February 2024 and for four weeks in a row during the summer in 2023 without any rest days. The witness stated that he raised this with the respondent but received no support at all.

It was put to the witness in cross examination that he had been given time off to address his health issues, but he had never mentioned that his mental health was suffering due to pressures of work at any time during the employment. The suggestion that the complainant worked for periods of three and four weeks without a break was denied by the respondent. In relation to staffing levels, it was put to the witness that there were two head chefs (including the complainant) there were four full time chefs and three prep chefs and that those staffing levels were more than sufficient to manage the expansion of the business to facilitate the evening openings and the “grab and go” take away service that was being planned.

Redress

The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to his complaint. The complainant, on the basis of his treatment by the respondent, the lack of engagement from the employer in relation to the issues raised by him and the failure of the respondent to acknowledge and support him in relation to his health issues, is seeking compensation at the higher levels permitted under the legislation.

In respect of the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, the respondent stated that the complainant’s resignation was not because of the conduct of the employer. The respondent cited the case law relating to claims of constructive unfair dismissal and confirmed its position that the complainant himself had stated that he had resigned because of medical advice that he needed to reduce stress and achieve a better work life balance. The respondent contends that this is not a situation where a complainant can resign for the reasons stated and then claim constructive unfair dismissal. The respondent contends that the complaint is without merit and should fail.

Evidence

Tracey Keogan

The witness gave evidence by affirmation. The witness stated that when she advertised for a head chef in 2023, the complainant applied and she contacted him straight away. The witness stated that she wanted a business partner who was a chef. The witness stated that the complainant also knew another chef and he came on board in September 2023 and both were to become company directors. The witness stated that her long-term plan was to bring in the directors and she would then plan her retirement. The witness stated that the plan was to have the café open in the day, introduced a grab and go service and possibly open 3-4 evenings per week as well. The witness stated that there were no discussions or issues raised in relation to the complainant suffering from stress or being unhappy or that there were staffing issues and there was no suggestion of financial mismanagement. The witness stated that the complainant said he was resigning as a director and was leaving the employment on the basis that his doctor had advised him that he needed to take things easier. The witness stated that the complainant was paid for his shareholding and he himself decided he was leaving the apartment and was not evicted as suggested.

Artur Andrzejewski

The witness gave evidence by affirmation. The witness stated that he had known the complainant for 10 years through three different jobs and that they were friends. The witness stated that he himself joined the respondent in September 2023 and by the end of 2023, there were three partners, the witness himself, Ms Keoghan and the complainant. The witness stated that there were weekly meetings of the three partners. In relation to staffing levels the witness stated that there were no real issues with staffing levels, as there were eight staff members already. The witness confirmed that issues did arise such as sick leave, “no shows” and issues relating to broken equipment at times but that in general there was sufficient staffing levels. The witness confirmed that both he and Ms Keoghan were on a specific salary and the complainant earned an additional 10K per year as head chef. The witness confirmed that after the other location opened in Charlesfort in July, the complainant stated that he was going to resign for a better work life balance. The witness stated that there was no discussion in his presence relating to the notice period and that these discussions took place with the solicitor and accountant.

Mitigation of Loss

The respondent contends that the complainant has not made sufficient efforts to mitigate his losses following the cessation of his employment. The respondent quoted the EAT decisions in Coad v Eurobase (UD1138/2013) and Sheehan v Continental Administration (UD858/1999) in support of its position that the complainant must spend a significant amount of time each day seeking alternative employment.

The Applicable Law

Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 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,

In the within complaint, the complainant is contending that due the conduct of the employer, he was left with no option but to resign from his employment.

Constructive Dismissal

There are two tests in relation to proving that a Constructive Unfair Dismissal has occurred. These are the “Contract Test” and the” Reasonableness Test.” Both relate to the behaviour of the employer.

In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27 the “contract test” is summarised as follows:

 “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 or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any other performance.”

Addressing the “reasonableness test” the decision summarises the conduct of the employer as follows:

 “whether the employer conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so the employee is justified in leaving.”

The requirement to exhaust internal procedures is an essential element of succeeding in a claim of constructive dismissal. This is set out in the case of Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd (UD 474/1981) whereby the EAT said that:

“the appellant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints.”

Mitigation of Loss

The complainant submitted significant levels of documentation in relation to his efforts to find alternative work following his resignation from the respondent. The complainant confirmed that he began in new employment in December 2024 and moved on to another role in July 2025 where he remains employed. I am satisfied that the complainant made significant efforts to mitigate his losses from September 2024 and these efforts resulted in new employment from December 2024 onwards.

Conclusions

I note the submissions of the parties and the evidence given at the adjudication hearing. The complainant felt that he was overworked and that the respondent organisation was understaffed at a time where there were additional projects underway to secure sufficient business to pay for the salaries of the two additional directors/partners. The complainant stated that he continually raised issues at the weekly director meetings, but he says that nothing was done to alleviate the pressure or assist him in the difficulties he was experiencing with the expanding projects.

The complainant accepts that he did not raise a grievance as he felt he had already continually raised issues to no avail. The complainant also acknowledged that he resigned due to his health and to achieve a better work life balance because of his ongoing health issues. The complainant is claiming constructive unfair dismissal and for that claim to succeed, he must show that due to the conduct of the employer, he had no choice but to resign from his employment.

In all the circumstances of this complaint, I do not find that the complainant had no other choice but to resign. The complainant chose, as was his right, to resign to achieve a better work life balance and for health reasons but having considered all the submissions and evidence before me, I do not find that the resignation was the only available option for the complainant because of the employer’s conduct. I find that the complainant has not satisfied the burden of proof on this issue. On that basis, I find that the complaint of alleged constructive unfair dismissal cannot succeed.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal is not well founded.

Key Words:

Constructive dismissal, grievance procedures not used

Case Law cited by respondent:

Joyce v Brothers of Charity Services [2009] ELR 328

Cedarglade Limited v Tina Hilban UDD1843

O’Gorman v Glen Tyre Company (UD2314/2010)

Murray v Rockabill Shellfish Ltd (UD1832/2010)

Coad v Eurobase (UD1138/2013)

Sheehan v Continental Administration (UD858/1999)