Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Toseef  Chaudry

Staycity Group

Representatives

Self

 Did not attend

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-00074259-001

11/08/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Night Manager with the Respondent.  He commenced employment on 17 April 2023.  He was paid €2,750.00 per month and worked a 40-hour week.  He resigned on 17 April 2025 as a result of the Respondent seeking to impose a sanction of demotion.  He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 11 August 2025.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath. The Complainant submitted a complaint of constructive dismissal to the WRC on 11 August 2025. It is the Complainant’s submission that he looked for an increase in his wages and following this, the Respondent sought to demote him from his role as Night Manager to reception duties.  The Respondent claimed that there were complaints from guests.  He requested specifics for those and was told that there were three.  The Complainant believes that these were “not legitimate” as the guests left positive reviews about him on the website and he exhibited copies of these at the hearing.  In addition, the Complainant only ever received positive feedback from the previous General Manager and he received an award for best Night Manager.  He was asked to attend a meeting with an HR manager and a Director.  He had no representation or interpreter.  He was then told that there were other issues with his performance.  He sought details of these complaints and was told that there were three.

The Complainant was issued with a formal warning on 4 March 2025 which stated that he would be demoted to a role of night reception and his wages would be reduced to €15.00 per hour.  The Complainant stated that there would normally be three people rostered for the night reception but he was left on his own.  He was responsible for physically moving all the accumulated laundry bags and he provided photographs of these at the hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence that he refused to sign the letter which proposed to change his role and wages and he was left with no option but to resign and look for alternative employment.  

The Complainant also outlined that he was not given holiday pay and he was also not paid sick pay when he was on sick leave for two weeks following a back injury which occurred as a result of the volume of heavy lifting he was required to undertake.  The Complainant submitted that he was owed 31 days of holiday pay.

The Complainant was asked by the Adjudication Officer about his attempts to mitigate his loss.  He gave evidence that he found alternative employment immediately after resigning.

The Complainant in a closing statement stated that he was in the role of Night Manager for two years and had only positive feedback from the General Manager.  He was happy in his role and got excellent feedback from the guests.  He believes that his request for an increase in his wages was the reason the Respondent sought to demote him.  He was not represented at the meeting and did not know what the reason for the change in attitude towards him was.

The Respondent or a representative on its behalf did not attend the hearing.

CA-00074259-001:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 arising from his constructive dismissal on 17 April 2025.  The Complainant was employed as a night manager from 17 April 2023 until his resignation on 17 April 2025.  The complaint form was submitted to the WRC on 11 August 2025.

The Law:

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, in relevant part, states as follows:

(1)             “In this Act –

“dismissal” in relation to an employee means –

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(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, or

(c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose;”

As the Adjudication Officer I am obliged to establish if Section 1(b) of the Act of 1977 operates to validate this complaint of constructive dismissal. 

Considering the statutory definition contained in Section 1 of the Act of 1977 as amended, and the authoritative principles adopted by the relevant fora and the Courts, the onus lies with the Complainant to demonstrate that his resignation on 17 April 2025 was justified.   This is the date of dismissal and there was no ambiguity in relation to the Complainant’s intention with effect from that date.

Deliberation:

Where the fact of dismissal is in dispute the Complainant must establish that his employment came to an end in circumstances amounting to a dismissal as that term is defined by the Act. To succeed in a claim of constructive dismissal under the Act, the Complainant must demonstrate that his decision to resign from his employment resulted from either a repudiatory breach of his contract of employment by the employer or such unreasonable behaviour by the employer that he could not fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. Was there a repudiatory breach of the Complainant’s contract of employment?

To amount to a repudiatory breach, the employer’s breach must constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract. A repudiatory breach allows a party not in breach to accept the breach and affirm the contract or to repudiate the contract. If the employee decides to repudiate the contract by resigning, he needs to do so in a timely manner, otherwise his continuing to work can be taken to amount to an affirmation.

The test by which a repudiatory breach of contract can be identified was set out by Lord Denning M.R. in Western Excavating Limited (ECC) v Sharp [1978] IRLR 332 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 further performance”.

In assessing whether the employer’s conduct in this case amounted to a repudiatory breach of the Complainant’s contract of employment, I find that he did not establish facts sufficient to show such a breach, or that he was entitled to regard himself as dismissed as a result. The Complainant did not provide any evidence that the investigation or disciplinary process lacked fair procedures. 

Was the employer’s behaviour such that it was reasonable for the Complainant to resign?

The second question is whether the Complainant was entitled to terminate his employment because of the actions of the respondent, having regard to the conduct of both parties in the events leading up to his resignation.

At the hearing evidence was heard from the Complainant about the satisfactory manner in which he carried out his role for two years.  It was only when he requested an increase in wages that the Respondent sought to demote him on the basis of negative feedback from guests and performance-related matters.

The cumulative effect of these interactions must also be weighed – whether they crossed a threshold that damaged the relationship to the point where a resignation was a reasonable response.

The Act places a high burden on a complainant in a constructive dismissal case. To succeed in such a claim, a complainant must establish that the employer’s unreasonable behaviour was such that they were justified in believing that they could not continue any longer in that employment. An employee must alert the employer to his situation by availing of the grievance procedure, where one exists, to allow the employer an opportunity to rectify the problem before resigning.

The Complainant told the hearing that he was not aware that there was a grievance process to go through. He noted that he had not received sick pay for two weeks or holiday pay and stated that the Respondent was aware of this.  However, the letter of 4 March 2025 clearly outlined the appeals process.

.A failure to invoke the employer’s grievance procedure can be fatal to a complaint of constructive dismissal.

The imperative to utilise the grievance procedure is clearly outlined in the case of Conway v Ulster Bank Limited UD474/1981:

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

The requirement to use the employer’s grievance procedure was also emphasised in the Labour Court case of Mary Kirrane v Barncarroll Area Development Co Ltd (UDD1635) which stated:

“Where constructive dismissal is contended for it is for the person making the claim to establish that the behaviour of the employer was such as to leave the appellant no alternative but to terminate the employment or that the employer’s behaviour has fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.  The person claiming constructive dismissal has an obligation to access available grievance procedures in the course of attempting to deal with whatever situation led to consideration of termination of the employment”.

Determination:

In all the circumstances, I find that the uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that an investigation and disciplinary process resulted in his demotion and reduction in pay.  The Complainant was advised of the outcome of this process in writing on 4 March 2025.  He was also advised “You have the right to appeal this decision within 10 days from the date of this letter”.  He was provided with contact details of the appeals person who is a Regional Operations Director. The Complainant did not appeal the decision and did not provide any rationale for not doing so.

The Complainant was more than capable of formulating a grievance or lodging an appeal and following it through.  He chose not to do so.  I find that there is no evidence to indicate that the Complainant made any reasonable effort to have his grievance and appeal of the sanction addressed before resigning.  In that context the Respondent did not have any opportunity to hear and respond to any matters of concern that the Complainant had. 

Having reviewed all the evidence and written submissions, I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed.

I have decided that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed from his employment.  I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Constructive dismissal.  Failure to appeal.