Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Supervising Pharmacist

Pharmacy

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ledwith Solicitors LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking Adjudication under the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00068998-001

02/02/2025

On 2nd February 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her employer effectively constructively dismissed her by failing to properly investigate a series of grievances raised in the course of her employment. By response, while the Employer accepted that the Worker raised grievances in the course of her employment, they submitted that the same were addressed and resolved by way of the informal grievance procedures and that the Worker resigned her employment for other reasons.

Following the Employer’s positive election regarding engagement with the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 6th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submits that she commenced employment in the role of Supervising Pharmacist in March 2024. At the outset of her tenure, the Worker enjoyed her position and maintained positive professional relationships with both colleagues and management. On 9th May 2024, the Worker engaged in an informal performance management discussion with a colleague. During this interaction, the colleague acted inappropriately by raising her voice, behaving oppressively, and refusing to follow reasonable instructions. Consequently, the Worker emailed the Area Manager to request that he address this conduct. Although the Area Manager undertook to speak with the colleague and an apology was subsequently offered, the colleague’s behaviour remained hostile towards the Worker.

Due to this persistent hostility, which created an uncomfortable working environment, the Worker requested that the Area Manager initiate a formal investigation and follow any necessary disciplinary procedures. On 10th May 2024, the Worker further corresponded with the Area Manager expressly requesting that an investigation commence under the formal procedures. Despite the Worker explicitly stating that a lack of resolution could lead to her resignation, no substantive investigation was conducted, and no formal meetings were arranged. In this regard, the Worker submitted that her concerns were effectively ignored.

On 8th July 2024, having received no adequate response from management or human resources, the Worker submitted her notice of resignation. She subsequently secured alternative employment, albeit at a lower rate of pay and with a more junior job title and reduced benefits. The Worker contends that the failure of the Employer to address her grievances constituted a fundamental breach of contract, resulting in her constructive dismissal, and requested that a recommendation issue in her favour.

The Employer submits that the Worker has provided no valid basis for a claim of constructive dismissal. In this regard, the Employer confirmed that the Worker commenced her role as a Supervising Pharmacist on 4th March 2024. On 10th May 2024, the Area Manager received a telephone call from the Worker regarding the alleged inappropriate behaviour of a colleague during an informal meeting the previous day. Thereafter, the Worker emailed a the Area Manager to requesting that he address the matter with the individual concerned.

Contrary to the Worker’s assertions, the Employer states that the Area Manager visited the premises on 14th May 2024 to speak with the colleague. During this visit, it was noted that the colleague had already apologised to the Worker. The Area Manager further outlined the colleague’s responsibilities and arranged additional training and support. A follow up visit was conducted on 24th May 2024, during which no further issues were reported by either party and the matter was duly considered to be resolved.

When the Worker raised further concerns on 4th June 2024, the Area Manager attended the store that same day to discuss the issues with the colleague. During a subsequent visit on 20th June 2024, the Area Manager observed a positive atmosphere and noted that the Worker appeared content and raised no further concerns. Following a further email from the Worker on 26th June 2024 requesting a further investigation, the Area Manager held a telephone call with her the following day. He explained that the matter had been addressed effectively on an informal basis through an apology and additional training, at which point the Employer again deemed the matter closed.

On 8th July 2024, the Worker submitted her resignation via email, providing no specific reasons for her departure. During a telephone conversation of 9th July 2024, the Worker reportedly informed the Area Manager that she preferred a temporary contract and had been offered enhanced benefits elsewhere. The Employer maintains that no grievances were raised during this final discussion.

The Employer submits that the Worker failed to complete a formal grievance form as mandated by the relevant internal policy and failed to properly engage with internal procedures prior to her resignation. Furthermore, the Employer contends that all informal resolutions were communicated to the Worker, who appeared satisfied at the material time. As the Worker had secured alternative employment before resigning and failed to exhaust the internal grievance process, the Employer submits that a recommendation should not be issued in her favour.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding the present dispute, The Worker alleges that she raised multiple concerns regarding inappropriate behaviour and alleged bullying by a colleague, both verbally and in writing. She submitted that despite her clear communication of these concerns, the Employer failed to take substantive action. By response, the Employer acknowledges receipt of said communications but submitted that the issues were resolved through the informal stage of the grievance procedure prior to the Worker’s resignation.

In this regard, it is common case that on 9th May 2024, the Worker reported the colleague’s conduct to her manager, a report confirmed by email on 10th May 2024. Following this, the manager spoke with the colleague, who subsequently offered an apology. In this regard, I agree with the submission of the Employer that, at this juncture, the matter was effectively resolved in accordance with their internal grievance procedures, which promote informal resolution as a sensible first step.

However, thereafter it is again common case that the Worker raised further issues, alleging a hostile environment and isolating behaviour on the part of her colleague. In her correspondence, the Worker specifically requested that the Employer initiate a formal investigation and follow any necessary disciplinary procedures. While the Employer claims this second instance was again handled and resolved informally, their own internal procedures dictate that if informal measures fail, the matter should proceed to a formal stage on the request of the employee in question.

In this regard, there is no evidence that the Employer seeking to engage with the formal process, despite the Worker’s express request for an investigation and her clear indication that informal measures were insufficient. In this regard, a reasonable employer would be expected to offer the Worker access to the relevant formal procedures and consult with them in this regard. While the parties are in dispute regarding the nature of the conversations following this correspondence, it appears that the Employer did directly consult with the Worker regarding the course of the investigation and that they sought to engage with the informal process a second time. 

While I agree with the Employer that the Worker’s notice of resignation did not explicitly state her rationale for termination, it is reasonable to conclude that the hostile working environment she had reported approximate two weeks prior was a significant contributing factor in this decision. Upon receiving notice of resignation from an employee who had recently flagged such serious concerns, a reasonable employer would have invited the employee to engage with the grievance process, including the formal procedures, in order to investigate and potentially resolve any unresolved issues prior to the resignation taking effect. While the parties are in dispute regarding the nature of the conversations following notice of resignation, such an offer should be made in writing to avoid such disputes, particularly in circumstances whereby the employee in question had raised written concerns previously.

In summary, while it is apparent that the initial complaint may have appeared resolved to the Employer, the Worker clearly did not share this assessment. Thereafter, the Employer’s persistent failure to trigger formal procedures, both after the communication of the second grievance and upon receipt of the resignation notice, represents a procedural failure and unfair behaviour.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, a recommendation will issue in favour of the Worker.

Formal Procedures, Grievance Procedures, Formal Process