Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Cleaner

Workshop

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00070831

15/04/2025

On 15th April 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her dismissal by her former employer was both procedurally and substantively unfair. By response, the Employer denied these allegations, submitting that the Worker elected to resign her employment of her own volition. 

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 16th March 2025. This hearing was held in person, at the Commission’s Sligo offices.

Both parties issued 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 stated that she was engaged with the Employer as a cleaner, having commenced her role on 16th September 2024. She submitted that she enjoyed her work and maintained positive working relationships with both colleagues and management.

The Worker stated that she encountered difficulties towards the end of her employment. During the week commencing 31st March 2025, she became ill and was placed on a period of certified sick leave. Thereafter, she commenced a period of pre-arranged annual leave on 7th and 8th April 2025. She returned to work on 9th April 2025 and duly submitted her medical certificate to management.

On 10th April 2025, the managing director spoke with the Worker in a condescending manner regarding an alleged defect in the standard of her cleaning. The Worker denied these allegations, stating that the premises had always been cleaned to an acceptable standard and submitting that the Employer was merely searching for non-existent defects in her work.

The following day, 11th April 2025, the Managing Director again began to find fault in the Worker’s cleaning. The Worker stated that the managing director became increasingly aggressive in the manner in which he issued instructions. She felt anxious and uncomfortable, requesting that he refrain from speaking to her in that tone. In response, the managing director invited her to his office.

During that meeting, the managing director stated that he wished to put an end to the situation. When the Worker asked for clarification, he indicated that he was terminating her employment. The managing director asserted that the Worker was unreliable due to her absences during the previous week, to which she reiterated that the absence was covered by a medical certificate. He again raised issues regarding the standard of her work, which she denied, noting that no formal or informal concerns had ever been raised prior the present issues.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that her dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. She stated that the true reason for her dismissal was her taking two days of certified sick leave the previous week, which the managing director had expressed frustration over. She denied any defects in her performance and highlighted that she had successfully passed her six-month probationary period without any issues being raised by the Respondent. The Worker expressly denied that she had resigned her employment and referenced correspondence from the Employer that contradicted their submissions in this regard.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Worker submitted that her dismissal was unfair and requested a recommendation in her favour.

The Employer denied that the Worker had been dismissed, asserting instead that the Worker elected to resign her employment.

In this regard, the managing director of the Employer accepted that a discussion occurred on 11th April 2025 regarding performance standards. He stated that several previous discussions had taken place concerning standards and attendance, and that the Worker was given ample opportunity to improve in both areas but demonstrated no improvement or willingness to do so.

The Employer stated that following a frank exchange of views on the matter, the Worker offered her resignation, which the Employer accepted. The Employer firmly denied that any discussion regarding the Worker's sickness absence was raised at that juncture, maintaining that she had elected to terminate her employment of her own accord. Consequently, the Employer submitted that the termination was not an unfair dismissal, but rather a resignation offered by the Worker and accepted by the Respondent.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker submitted that she was dismissed without recourse to any formal procedure, without prior notification of the issues to be raised, without sight of the evidence to be used against her, and without being afforded an opportunity to defend herself.

In response to these allegations, the Employer submitted that following an exchange of views regarding the standard of the Worker's work and recent absences, the Worker elected to terminate her employment by way of resignation. In those circumstances, the Employer submitted that the termination was not unfair, as the Worker had simply resigned of her own volition.

Having regard to the foregoing, it is evident that a conflict exists regarding the nature of the termination of the Worker's employment. The Employer submitted that the Worker elected to resign on the date in question, whilst the Worker strongly maintained that the Employer terminated her employment. In circumstances whereby an employee elects to resign their employment, it is incumbent upon an Employer to issue written correspondence to an employee who has resigned, confirming the date, time, and nature of the resignation, and, where appropriate, offering an opportunity to reconsider. In the present case, this did not occur, and indeed the Worker opened correspondence from the Employer directly contradicting this version of events.

Taking the Employer's account at its highest, it is apparent that the Worker offered her resignation following a dispute regarding the standard of her work, which she strongly disputed. In that regard, it is noted that the Employer engaged in no formal or informal process concerning the standard of the Worker's output during her tenure. It is further noted that she successfully completed her probationary period without any issues being raised.

Furthermore, whilst the Employer stated that the termination did not arise from the Worker's sick leave, the Employer accepted that part of the discussion related to her attendance. In considering the submissions of both parties, these matters are inextricably linked. The Worker's absence related to a period of duly certified sick leave, which ought not to have formed the basis for any disciplinary action, let alone a dismissal.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is found that the Employer dismissed the Worker during the course of the meeting. It is apparent that the Employer engaged in no fair or formal procedure regarding the issues that led to the Worker's dismissal, and her submission that she was deprived of any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations raised is accepted.

In these circumstances, a recommendation is made in favour of the Worker in relation to the dispute as referred.

Trade Dispute, Dismissal, Procedures