Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Irene  Keady

M&M Qualtech Limited

Representatives

Self-represented 

Aisling McDevitt IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067702-001

27/11/2024

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 7 April 2018. Her employment terminated on 11 October 2024.

On 27 November 2024, the Complainant referred her complaint to the Director General of the WRC alleging that she had to leave her job due to the conduct of the Respondent or others at work.

The Respondent rejects the claim.

On 7 May 2025, the Complainant furnished the following submission.

The Complainant submits that she never missed a day or phoned in sick in 6.5 years other than when she fainted at work and her supervisor would not allow her to finish her shift and told her not to come in the following day. The Complainant never once refused overtime, and she was always on time.

Reasons for leaving:

The Complainant submits that she received no support from the Respondent. The Complainant’s supervisor and HR were aware of the issues. There was no presence on the floor to see what she was subjected to. The Complainant submits that she was dreading going to work and it was affecting her mental health. Her health suffered due to stress of the environment.

The Complainant did not want to leave a permanent job, but she knew that she did not have any support, things were getting worse, and she was afraid. The Complainant submits that on her last night, another member of staff stayed back to accompany her to her car.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s policy is all about witnesses and, without a witness, the Respondent viewed it as it wasn't happening which is totally wrong. The Respondent could have offered options to avoid these incidents happening as it was made aware of what was happening.

The Complainant described the financial impact the termination of her employment had on her. She also described the mental and physical impact.

The Complainant submits that she is broken after the way she was treated by the Respondent after she gave 110% over 6.5 years. She asserts that the Respondent could have helped her. She had asked often enough, and she told the Respondent what she was subjected to on a daily basis. There were ways to help and nip this situation that spiralled out of control. The Complainant felt that if this was in a classroom environment/school yard, the children would be supervised and kept apart.

The Complainant submits that she was bullied by someone way smarter and cuter than her. She believes that the two employees in question knew that she had received a warning, and they constantly tried to provoke her in order for her to get another one. The Complainant submits that she has lost all confidence in herself and mentally she is at rock bottom. She is a very strong person, but this has brought her to her knees.

Events of late 2021

The Complainant submits that one Friday night she was putting stuff away from her table/plastic holders piling them against the wall when Employee A turned and shouted at her, 'you can't pile them that high'. The Complainant replied and said, ‘Health & Safety is down there if you have an issue’. The following evening, the Complainant brought up a trolley near where Employee A was stationed, and she caught it and brought it to the other end of the room.

The following Monday the Complainant’s line lead brought her into the office and asked did she know what was this about and the Complainant told him she did not. He then told the Complainant that she was rude to Employee A on Friday night. He said there is now a sign up and nothing is to go higher than the sign that reads 'Please do not pile higher’. He advised the Complainant that he was not happy with her behaviour towards Employee A. The Complainant’s reply was that both Employee A and her are on the same level and why would Employee A be telling the Complainant what to do. Further, the Complainant said that if there was an issue either the line lead or health & safety should approach her. Employee A should have approached health & safety and not have shouted at the Complainant. The Complainant got very upset, and the supervisor told her she could go out to the car and take a while out.

25 May 2024

The Complainant reported Employee A to An Garda Siochána on 25 May 2024 as she could not take any more of being followed on the road. The Complainant went to her mother's house one night for about 20 minutes to allow Employee A to get home ahead of her but suddenly Employee A appeared on the road.  Another night the Complainant went home via a different route and again it was the same outcome.

The Complainant submits that she was nervous travelling home from work especially with living on her own. The Complainant felt that Employee A was trying to find out where she was living.

The Complainant took many different routes home and each time she would appear. The Complainant was happier to let Employee A go ahead of her but even if she was ahead, she would keep pulling in. The Complainant was afraid there would be an accident on the road. It was the final straw for her to go to the Gardaí. The Complainant felt she was being provoked including full lights behind her. This was dangerous behaviour on the road, but it wasn't a game to the Complainant, she was afraid.

The Complainant submits that the following week Gardaí called and took full details of the events that led to her reporting Employee A. Gardaí suggested that the Complainant and Employee A go on opposite shifts or do anything necessary to avoid these issues arising in the future. The Complainant brought this to the attention of her supervisor and Ms McGreal, HR Manager. They would not take it on board as it was outside the workplace. The Complainant submits that the Gardaí told her that they would call to Employee A to hear her version of events. They phoned the Complainant later and said that Employee A had said that she connects her phone in the car park and this is the reason why she does not leave until the Complainant leaves. There was no explanation given for pulling in and out of the hard shoulder.

The Complainant submits that Employee A brought this story into the workplace and told everyone that the Complainant had reported her to Gardaí. The Complainant informed her supervisor on 31 May 2024 that nobody was talking to her because Employee A was telling her version of events where she was completely innocent. The supervisor advised the Complainant that it was an issue outside of the workplace and she didn't want to be involved. The supervisor informed the Complainant that Employee A had informed her the previous Monday of what had happened, and she told Employee A the same thing i.e. that she didn't want to be involved, and it was an issue outside of the workplace. The Complainant asked her supervisor if it was an issue outside the workplace could she then have a word with Employee A and ask her to stop telling people in the workplace. The supervisor did not reply. The Complainant made her supervisor aware that people were not talking to her as a result of Employee A telling everyone about the matter and the supervisor replied that she could not make people talk to the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that shortly after this she applied and got a job in another company. She spoke with her supervisor and verbally advised her that she was handing in her notice. The supervisor asked if this was because of the ongoing issues.  She asked if the Complainant was sure and if it was what she wanted. She said she was sorry it had come to this. She asked the Complainant to go home and think about it, discuss it with her family and take the weekend to think about it. She advised the Complainant that she would need a written notice, therefore, nothing would be done until the Complainant came back to her. The Complainant told her supervisor on Monday that she would give it another go. The supervisor was genuinely delighted, and she said that was great and she felt that the Complainant was very unsure of her decision when they spoke on Friday.

20 June 2024

The Complainant submits that she went into the canteen to put her lunch into the fridge before starting her shift. She left her handbag on a table (the table she would usually eat her lunch at) while she put her lunch in the fridge. Employee B and two other members of staff were sitting at another table in the canteen. Employee B started to whisper while looking at the Complainant and started to laugh. The Complainant left the canteen and went to the locker room as the environment was very uncomfortable.

Employee B and the two other staff members came into the locker room after, and the Complainant said to Employee B:  'You think you are untouchable because you are [a supervisor's] sister'. The Complainant then left the locker room and went onto the work floor.

The Complainant could overhear Employee B speaking about her to other members of staff. About a half an hour later, the supervisor called the Complainant into the office. The Complainant submits that the supervisor absolutely tore into her, and the Complainant started crying. The Complainant explained to the supervisor that she had no idea what the Complainant was being put through daily. The Complainant told her supervisor that she hated coming to work and she was a wreck from it all. The Complainant admitted that she was wrong saying what she said to Employee B, but she felt she was being provoked daily had and no support. The supervisor advised the Complainant that she would prepare a report for HR. The Complainant told the supervisor that nobody was speaking to her because she reported Employee A to Gardaí. The Complainant asked the supervisor if she could separate them. The Complainant was very upset. The supervisor let the Complainant out the side door of the office so nobody would see her as she was visible very upset. The supervisor let her go to her car as she could not stop crying.

The following day, Employee B reported the incident to HR.  The Complainant met with Ms McGreal, HR on 26 June 2024 regarding the incident.

11 July 2024

Employee A sat opposite the Complainant’s table for her whole shift which was totally unnecessary. The management was aware of the issues, and nobody asked her to move back to her own area/desk. The Complainant felt this was to provoke her.

12 July 2024

Employee A sat opposite the Complainant’s table until the Complainant went downstairs at 7pm. When the Complainant came back at 9pm, Employee A was back at her own table/area.

15 July 2024

Employee A sat opposite the Complainant until Employee B came up from downstairs at 8pm. Employee B then took Employee A's place.

On the same day, the Complainant received an email from Ms McGreal with the outcome of the meeting of 26 June 2024. The Complainant was informed that the decision has been taken to issue a formal verbal warning that would remain on her file for 6 months. The letter informed her of the right to appeal against the decision.

16 July 2024

Employee B passed a comment to other members of staff on the Complainant’s line saying it was hilarious. They asked her what she was on about. She looked and laughed at the Complainant saying it was a private joke.

18 July 2024

The Complainant replied to Ms McGreal’s email expressing her disappointment with the Respondent decision. The Complainant stated that she felt she was being provoked on a daily basis and had no management support. She further stated that, in her view, the laughing, whispering and sneering was a form of bullying.

The Complainant stated that she believed that one sentence, 'you think you are untouchable because your sister is a supervisor' did not merit a formal verbal warning to remain on her file for 6 months during which her attendance, time keeping, conduct and performance would be monitored.

19 July 2024

Employee A sat at the table opposite to the table that the Complainant would always sit at. She was talking to a member of staff. When the staff member left, Employee A moved and sat beside the Complainant. Employee A would have always sat at the back of the canteen.

On the same day, the Complainant received an email from Ms McGreal where she stated that she assumed that the Complainant wished to appeal the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. Ms McGreal addressed the points raised in the Complainant’s email. Ms McGreal repeatedly stated that the Respondent cannot act on hearsay or opinion but is committed to maintaining a respectful work environment for all employees. Ms McGreal stated that inappropriate language or behaviour could be reported to a supervisor or HR with the details of the instance, including the date, time, any evidence of the incident, and names of any witnesses. It would be then investigated.  Ms McGreal also advised the Complainant of the Employee Assistance Programme provided independently and available to her.

The Complainant replied to Ms McGreal stating that she did not necessarily wish to appeal the decision but wanted to express her grievance with the decision. She stated that she wanted to make Ms McGreal aware of the conditions she was working under but “Reporting is the final straw, and I would like to avoid until every other approach has been taken.”

23 July 2024

Employee A sat beside the Complainant in the canteen. One other member of staff was present in the canteen at the time. Employee A left after a few minutes.

23 July 2024 @ 20.00

There was a mistake on a job from the Complainant’s line, and she had to rework the job, and this could take a few hours. This involved weighing all the products and the scales are in front of a line of people. Employee A had never sat at this particular table in front of the scales but did on this day. It took the Complainant from 20.00 to midnight. Employee A sat opposite the Complainant for those 4 hours. She had no purpose at this table as she had her own table. This was totally unnecessary, and the only purpose was to provoke the Complainant.

23 July 2024 @ 23.50

Employee A came over the Complainant’s side of the locker room to change her shoes. This was totally unnecessary as her locker, bag and jacket were on the opposite side. The Complainant had never seen this to happen before.

The Complainant referred to Ms McGreal’s email of 23 July 2024 where she stated that some of the comments the Complainant referred to were very concerning, but the Respondent had no detail on who was alleged to have said them. Ms McGreal stated that the Respondent would act on and investigate any reports of inappropriate language. She further stated that the supervisor would monitor the work environment and speak regularly with the team. Ms McGreal asked the Complainant to confirm the following:

1.      Do you wish to appeal the outcome of the disciplinary hearing? Yes/No

2.      Do you wish to raise a formal complaint/grievance at this point?

3.      The Complainant did not reply to this email.

24 July 2024

Employee B came over to a member of staff opposite the Complainant and was whispering in his ear. He did not reply but they were both staring into the Complainant’s face.

24 July 2024 @ 18.15

Employee A came into the canteen on a break and sat beside the Complainant. She had a choice of seats as the canteen was quite empty.

24 July 2024 @ 20.00/20.45

Employee B came over to a member of staff opposite the Complainant whispering, laughing and looking at the Complainant.

24 July 2024 @ 21.00

Employee B came down to the Complainant’s line with her empty containers and left them on the Complainant’s table. The Complainant didn't react but again she was being provoked. Employee A moved the containers when there was no reaction.

2 August 2024 @ 00.00 - 1.00am

Employee A pulled into the hard shoulder on the way home and the Complainant overtook her. The Complainant then pulled in and hid at the side of the building as she was afraid of what had happened previously travelling home from work. Employee A clearly pulled in again further down the road as she came up behind the Complainant on the by-pass. The Complainant was constantly watching in her rear-view mirror and her reasons for pulling in was purely from a safety point of view.

7 August 2024 @ 16.05/16.45

Employee A sat opposite the Complainant while her own table was free for 40 minutes.

8 August 2024 @ 10.40

Another member of staff asked the Complainant to get 2 parts from another table. The Complainant told him she wasn't going over there. Employee B overheard this and laughed at the Complainant and then went over to Employee A to inform her and the two of them started laughing and staring at the Complainant.

21 August 2024

Employee A came down to the Complainant’s table. The two lines were working together, the job/task had not worked out. Employee A decided on her own initiative to work the Complainant’s 20 bags by counting her bags (after the Complainant). When the Complainant reported this to the supervisor, the supervisor agreed that Employee A should not have come down to the Complainant’s table and reworked her job as the Complainant knew her job well enough. The Complainant believes there was nothing done about this other than the supervisor telling her that Employee A should not have re-worked her job.

26 August 2024

The Complainant went downstairs to where Employee A had previously been working for one year. Another member of staff provided her with what she needed. When the Complainant was leaving, Employee A starred her in the face and shut the door after she left which was open when the Complainant arrived and whilst she was downstairs.

10  September 2024 @ 20.15

Employee B hit the Complainant’s elbow/hand with a plastic tote/container bringing parts to the table. The Complainant knew this was intentional as it was done at force. The Complainant reported this to the supervisor and Employee B denied doing it. The supervisor went out to speak to Employee B on the floor about what had happened. Employee B refused to come into the office and discuss it. A First Aider looked at the Complainant’s hand. A health & safety incident report form was completed but it was taken no further as there were no witnesses.

 11 September 2024

The Complainant received an email from Ms McGreal asking her to attend a meeting at 16.05 (following on from the incident). The Complainant explained to Ms McGreal what she was going through on the floor and that she was hit with a tote/container full of parts at speed.

12 September 2024

Employee B wouldn't move in the locker room. The Complainant had to go around the locker room as she wouldn't let her pass.

Employee A walked in the Complainant’s space in front of her in the corridor (between locker room and canteen) and then put out her leg and folded her arms and wouldn't move. The Complainant went around her and didn't speak. There was no physical touch, but the Complainant felt provoked.

13 September 2024

The Complainant reported the incident of the previous night to the supervisor. The supervisor said that she couldn't see through the walls, and she could not go on what the Complainant told her only which the Complainant totally understood. The Complainant asked the supervisor to sort the floor, but she advised the Complainant that she could not just move people.

The Complainant told the supervisor that there were boxes put up along the table to block the Complainant off.

The supervisor said the whole lot was draining her and she could not do anything only suggest mediation with the three employees. The Complainant asked for help me as she felt she was being bullied at work, and it was really having an impact on her.

The supervisor said that she would not speak to Employee A on behalf of the Complainant.

13 September 2024

Employee A drove behind the Complainant and swapped lanes last minute as they were approaching the roundabout even though they were both taking the same exit off the roundabout.

20 September 2024

At clocking out time, Employee B said that she must go home and fill in her diary. The Complainant felt this was a dig for her as she had told Ms McGreal in one of the meetings that she had started to keep a diary/notes of the incidents at work.

On 20 September 2024 the Complainant requested to start and finish her shifts 10 minutes earlier with immediate effect. Ms McGreal emailed the Complainant on 25 September 2024 confirming the receipt of the request. As the Complainant referred to medical advice, she requested further information if it was on medical grounds.

The Complainant reverted stating that Ms McGreal was aware of an issue that occurred outside of the working hours a few months back. The Complainant said that she was not looking to bring this issue into the workplace. She was trying to get home from work in a safe manner, and this was the reason for her request. She felt that a letter from Gardaí might be a better option for her application. She stated that there were no medical issues relating to this request.

Ms McGreal replied:

“If there is no medical issue, then it cannot be reviewed on that basis. In relation to advice from Gardai, the company would need to seek its own advice on this matter. Adjusting employees' hours due to issues outside the workplace is not something that the company would do normally.”

The Complainant emailed back stating:

“You are aware of what happened a number of months ago. As previously outlined, it is an issue outside of work. Therefore, I am not going to get into the detail. However, it doesn't help when the two people in question finish work at the same time and are both heading in the same direction. I am trying to avoid a car accident and travel home from work in a safe, stress free environment. I would appreciate a favourable decision.”

Ms McGreal replied to the Complainant:

“The incident you refer to is outside of work. M&M Qualtech was made aware of an incident outside of work between you and another employee (not two other employees), but we are not aware of the details, nor can we get involved. This is a matter between you and the Gardai.  The request for a change to start and finish times by ten minutes has been discussed with [the client] and at this point, it is declined. If you'd like to arrive at the facility ten minutes earlier or leave ten minutes later, you can do this at your discretion.”

The Complainant emailed back expressing her disappointment with the decision. She stated that she would have appreciated it if a reason was given as opposed to a suggestion of what she could do, and if it was as simple as remaining in the work car park for 10 minutes or even 30 minutes after her shift, she wouldn't have put the request in.

Ms McGreal replied to the Complainant’s email on 3 October 2024. She explained that, as the reason for the request was related to an external incident which the Respondent did not have any evidence or involvement with and, as was operationally not viable for the client, the Complainant’s request was not approved. She noted that the Respondent did not see the workplace as unsafe for the Complainant. If the Complainant wished to raise a formal grievance or complaint on something, the Respondent would treat it as it did all other cases. Ms McGreal also noted that mediation could be arranged.

23 September 2024

Employee B kept switching on the air conditioning and another member of staff was turning it off. Employee B shouted down to the other member of staff 'do what you are told by Irene'.

Another member of staff came over to the Complainant and said he was observing what was going on and advised the Complainant to try her best to ignore it. He claimed it was happening because the Complainant was standing/working in under the air conditioning.

27 September 2024

Employee B put boxes up in front of the Complainant’s face and then sat opposite her. This was totally unnecessary as she had her own seat.

30 September 2024

The Complainant handed in her notice by email.

“I am writing to tender my notice.

It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel I have been left with no choice. I feel I have been bullied in the workplace, and senior's/management has been no help or support to me. I feel I have been let down.

I now need to look after my own health and well-being as this environment is toxic on every level.

I wish M&M Qualtech every success in the future.”

3 October 2024

The Complainant reported an incident of 2 October 2024 @ 23.50 to the supervisor. She alleged that Employee A elbowed her into her ribs. The Complainant stated that she went back to the canteen and said to Employee A that she was after hitting the Complainant in the ribs. Employee A said, "You are crazy. You walked into me”. The Complainant stated that she couldn't possibly have walked into Employee A as there was another member of staff in front of her and she remained on her side of the corridor.

The Complainant stated that this was another reason why she had to hand in her notice and that she was hit with a tote two weeks previously.

The Complainant stated that it was not fair to expect someone to work in this environment, the Respondent was more than aware of an issue but nothing has been done to keep the employees separated. The Complainant made a request to clock out at a different clock machine for her remaining time at work.

The supervisor notified HR of the Complainant’s report. The supervisor also forwarded a report made by Employee A some three hours later. Employee A alleged that it was the Complainant who shouldered her.

The supervisor advised HR that there was a further incident on that day where she was called by a staff member who believed that there was a confrontation between the Complainant and Employee A. The supervisor told them that she had had enough of this and the whole situation has become unmanageable and it had got to stop. She said that she had already gotten both statements and she did not need to hear them again. No issues were resolved but findings were inconclusive as there were two varying stories with no witnesses.

Ms McGreal emailed the Complainant on 4 October 2024 regarding the reports.

“We are writing to you to advise of a report we received from your supervisor, [named] on October 3rd 2024 and subsequently a response to the reported matter from the other party, [Employee A].

In addition to this, [the supervisor] also provided detail of a further incident which took place in the canteen later on October 3rd 2024. Please see details attached of the incidents and reports which have been filed.

We are very concerned that allegations continue to be made in relation to you and [Employee A] in the workplace and these reported matters all remain inconclusive due to the differing versions and lack of witnesses.

There were some points raised in your email to [the supervisor] on October 3rd, which we would like to address.

Interpersonal issues continue between you and [Employee A], but no internal case has been found against either party. The company has tried to support and advise, and requested numerous times to remain professional and respectful in the workplace, which unfortunately does not seem to be happening.

We have outlined that we cannot get involved in any external matter outside the workplace and work hours.

The company has no reason to believe there is any risk to either party's safety or well-being, and as both work on separate lines, there should be minimal interaction. Therefore, we have no reason to separate you and [Employee A] further.

In relation to an incident two weeks ago, which you referred to, this was brought to our attention following a H&S report. You and the other party, [Employee B] both reported an incident with two differing versions. Claims of physical contact and aggressive behaviour were made. Because the stories differed and the fact there were no witnesses, you were both advised by MMQ HR (on Sept 11th 2024) that we would not be pursuing these claims as there was insufficient evidence.

All employees can raise formal grievances or complaints at any time, and if a report is made, they will be reviewed, evaluated, and investigated as appropriate. The company takes such reports very seriously.

At this point, the level of disruption at work and the behaviors being displayed are at an unacceptable level and are now having a negative impact on wider team members. These behaviors do not represent the company values and are not in line with our Equal Opportunity and Dignity and Respect policy.

As you are leaving the company on Friday October 11th 2024, you are asked and reminded again to treat all employees with respect. Should you have a concern or issue in the work place, please speak to the supervisor, line lead or delegated person in their absence as soon as possible.

If you would like to stay at home next week and not attend work, this can also be facilitated operationally. Please let HR and your supervisor know if you decide to do so. Note you would be paid in full as normal for this time.”

The Complainant replied on 4 October 2024 as follows.

“I would gladly accept your offer to stay at home next week with full pay & if required, I am happy to finish early tonight.

Even though I am accepting this offer, please note that I am not accepting any of the responsibility for this horrendous situation.

I feel I am the victim & and it's unfortunate (for me) that it has come to this.”

The Complainant believed that, while she reported the incident to the supervisor on 3 October at 17.00, Employee A did not report this incident. The supervisor questioned Employee A in relation to this incident and then Employee A said that the Complainant hit her shoulder. The Complainant alleged that if this had been investigated properly, it would be clear that Employee A is much taller than her and there was no way she could have hit her shoulder.

The Complainant firmly believed that she was offered to stay at home during her last week on the basis of information from Employee A, which she gladly accepted as she was broken.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of the Complainant

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent chose not to help her. She was always asked for proof and witnesses.  She said that she would have never left if she was supported. The Complainant said that that she was hit twice but nobody saw it. She submitted that she spoke with her supervisor but got no support. The Complainant said that she had asked to separate her and Employee A. She said that Employee A had her own table and chair but she would have sat in front of the Complainant. When the Complainant asked to have her moved, she was told that there was no reason to move her. Nothing was done when Employee A and Employee B laughed at her.

The Complainant said that when she handed in her notice for the first time, the supervisor told her to think about it, and she decided to stay. However, it only got worse. Employee A would sit at her table and would follow her home. The Complainant said that she was afraid and reported it to Gardaí. After that, everyone fell out with her. The Complainant said that her supervisor told her that there was nothing she could do.

The Complainant said that she told HR that she could not take it anymore. If two people don’t get on, one should not be made to walk out of a full-time permanent job. The Complainant said that from July 2024 when she reported her concerns to Gardaí, HR would have been aware of the issues.

In cross-examination, the Complainant confirmed hat she was aware of the Respondent’s grievance procedure and both formal and informal routes available to her. She also confirmed that she was aware of the disciplinary procedure. The Complainant accepted that when she did make a statement to Employee B, a disciplinary process followed before a decision to issue a verbal warning was made. It was put to the Complainant that other employees would be entitled to a fair process as well. The Complainant said that she had thought that it would be sorted by HR.

The Complainant confirmed that she was aware of her right to representation. When prompted, the Complainant said that she did mention a number of issues such as Employee A sitting close to her at work. She said that it was relevant to the meeting as Employee A and Employee B were sitting together. She accepted that she was informed that if she had a grievance, she had right to raise it. She said that not raising a grievance was a mitigating factor. The Complainant accepted that the verbal warning was the lowest sanction, but she was not happy with it. 

The Complainant agreed that she worked in an open plan area and there were some 25 people at one time working there. While each employee had a location, they could be moved to another station.

The Complainant confirmed than in May 2024 she started applying for jobs in other companies. She said that, because of what was going on with Employee A, she tried to find another job. She was successful but the supervisor told her it would be her preference to keep the Complainant and she brought her around.

The Complainant said that she did not give any consideration to raising a complaint when she received the Dignity at Work policy. The Complainant was referred to Ms McGreal’s emails where she was repeatedly informed that should she wish to raise a formal complaint about a person whom she felt has continued to provoke her, she could do so and it would be investigated.

The Complainant said that she tried to keep it out of HR, she wanted to sort it out. She thought the four people in question could sit down and talk. She agreed that there were options available to her but said that there was only so much stress she could take.

Regarding the request to change her start/finish times, the Complainant said that there were other people who could leave earlier to catch a bus. However, she accepted that the Respondent engaged with the client regarding the change. The Complainant agreed that the option of arriving earlier/ leaving later was put to her. It was put to the Complainant that if she was unhappy with the decision she could have raised a grievance.

The Complainant agreed that she raised an incident report on 10 September 2024 and it was followed up. The Complainant said that at that stage she still thought that they could all meet and sort it out, she did not consider a grievance.

The Complainant said that she did not ask the supervisor to move her seat, but she would have moved if she was asked. However, she said that Employee A would sit opposite her regardless, she would move after the Complainant. The Complainant said that if she moved, others would be affected (three on the line).

The Complainant agreed that up to her resignation she did not use the expression “bullying”. However, she said that even at that stage she did not consider reporting the matter.

The Complainant accepted that she was provided with guidance but all that was needed was to separate her and Employee A.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent could not instigate a formal process or a transfer of an employee because there was no complaint raised by the Complainant, of which the Complainant was made aware. The Complainant replied that she did not raise a complaint, but the Respondent knew what was going on and should have investigated it. The Complainant agreed that she was notified how to raise a grievance. She reported one incident as a health and safety incident. It was investigated as such.

The Complainant said that she had a new job secured before she handed in her resignation. She said that if she did not have a new job, she would see how much she could take before leaving but she would not raise a grievance as she felt she had done enough.

The Complainant said that she did not complete her probationary period with the new employer due to a difficulty with her eyesight. She said that she applied for a number of positions and had interviews. However, she did not pass medicals because of her eye. She said that she worked for some two weeks over Christmas in another company. She also had a job for some seven weeks around July 2025 but, again, had issues with her eye.

The Complainant said that she applied for some 50 roles from October 2024 to July 2025. From July 2025, she applied for quite a few, on average one a week. She said that nothing could be done about the issue she has with her eye.

Post hearing, on 23 and 26 October 2025, the Complainant furnished evidence of her efforts to mitigate her losses.

The Respondent refutes the claim and asserts that the Complainant resigned her employment voluntarily and of her own volition.

The Respondent submits as follows.

Background to the Complainant:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a production operator. The Complainant commenced employment on 9 April 2018 on a fixed term basis and was made permanent on 9 March 2019. The Complainant remined in her role of production operator throughout her employment and was based on one of the Respondent’s client’s sites, in a shared building with their own operations. The Complainant worked alongside a team of circa 25 -30 Production Operators and her duties mainly include picking and packing products and preparing them for shipping. This work was completed normally in groups of 3-4 people in a line type or cell type set-up in an open plan space.

The Complainant resigned her employment with the Respondent on 30 September 2024. There was no formal grievance live with the Respondent at this time. The Respondent accepted the Complainant’s resignation, and her last day of employment was 11 October 2024. The Complainant had obtained new employment at the time of her resignation, per her own submissions to the WRC.

Background to the Respondent:

The Respondent is a sub-contractor manufacturer based in Parkmore, Galway. As a subcontractor, the Respondent does not manufacture its own product but develops and manufactures electronic and cable products for many customers (circa up to 25 key customers from startup, SME, and multinationals).

The Respondent’s core expertise is in product concept to development, manufacturing, and distributing complex electronic products and assemblies for four industry sectors: medical (Smart Medical/IOT), automotive, ICT Sector, and Agri-Tech.

The Respondent operates robust grievance and dignity at work procedures.  The Respondent has a disciplinary procedure. It is clear with regard to behaviour expected of staff. The grievance procedure is mentioned in the Respondent’s contracts of employment and the procedures are available to staff on the company internal HR system. This system can be accessed via mobile telephone on an app, on the iPads or on a PC provided by the Respondent. Any changes or updates to these policies are communicated by announcements on the app and directly to staff email.

The policies are well socialised among staff, a fact which is evident through their use, where warranted, and are explicitly notified to employees during induction.

Background to the Issue

The Complainant worked throughout her employment on one of the Respondent’s client sites which is located in the same building as the Respondent’s own operations. The Complainant was supervised by a client supervisor; however, she had access to the Respondent’s HR team and Senior Management team. Both are located on this site and are available to all employees.

The Complainant worked without issue for much of her career with the Respondent. However, she has had occasion to utilise the Respondent’s policies in the past, and has likewise been the subject of complaints from other staff members. That is to say, the Complainant was aware of the Respondent’s grievance and dignity at work procedures having utilised them two years prior to her resignation, in 2022. At that time, a process was undertaken to investigate a number of allegations made by the Complainant against a former staff member, as well as allegations made against her. A number of the allegations made by the Complainant were upheld, while others weren’t and the individual in question is no longer employed by the Respondent. Following this process the Complainant remained a valued staff member of the Respondent, and this was the case up until she left the Respondent’s employment. The organisation is large and by 2024, due to staff turnover, the number of employees who had been involved in this previous process, or who may have been aware of same was low.

In 2024 a number of interpersonal issues arose between the Complainant and a colleague of hers (“Employee A”).  Interpersonal issues also arose with another employee (“Employee B”).

The issues with Employee A in 2024 were first brought to the Respondent’s attention in May 2024, when Employee A spoke to the supervisor on site as she was upset by what she felt was an unfounded allegation having been made against her to the Gardaí by the Complainant.

The Complainant, later, also raised this issue with the supervisor on the basis that she felt that Employee A had told other colleagues about the issue. No formal grievance was raised about this matter at the time; however, it was communicated to both the Complainant and Employee A that the Respondent generally would not involve itself in allegations occurring outside the workplace, an approach that the Complainant agreed with. The Respondent was not aware of any further issues of this nature arising.

The Complainant, in her own submission, has outlined that, subsequent to this she was successful in her application for a role elsewhere but instead decided to put the issue behind her and continue working for the Respondent, and that she received a positive reception to this news from the supervisor, who, she states, was delighted that she would remain with the company. The Respondent was not made aware of any further issue with Employee A at this time, nor of any further issues arising outside of work.

Approximately a month later, a separate issue arose between the Complainant and a different employee, Employee B. While the Complainant has framed employees A and B as friends in her submission to the WRC it is worth noting that the Respondent is unaware of any particular friendship between the two other than that they are colleagues and further notes that there is somewhat of an age disparity between them.

In any event, the issue between the Complainant and employee B arose due to the Complainant approaching Employee B and saying, “you think you are untouchable because you are [a supervisor’s] sister”. For the avoidance of doubt, while Employee B’s sister does work as a supervisor for the client, Employee B is not the sister of the supervisor of this particular team.

Employee B reported this matter to the team supervisor who in turn raised it with the Complainant who confirmed that she had made this statement. The Complainant, in her submission also confirms that she made this statement. At no point has the Complainant suggested that Employee A was present during this interaction.

The matter was referred to HR under the company’s disciplinary procedure, and the Complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing. The Complainant was informed of the nature of the meeting and the allegations in advance of the meeting and was further informed of her right to be accompanied to the meeting.

The meeting took place on 26 June 2024 and was chaired by Joan McGreal, HR Manager. Ms McGreal leads the HR function for the Respondent company. The Complainant was afforded the opportunity to state her case and to put forward any mitigating circumstances she wished to raise. During the meeting she mentioned feeling that interpersonal issues existed between her and others on the team. Ms McGreal made a number of suggestions regarding potential informal solutions, to these issues, and committed to liaising with the supervisor on team integration. Ms McGreal also said to the Complainant;

“This is very unfortunate, Irene. As I previously said, any employee is well within their right to make a complaint if something is occurring that they are concerned about. 99% of people don’t come in to work to make problems. They just want to come in, do the work and go home. It is very important that we all act professional and treat each other with respect.”

Furthermore, Ms McGreal also stated; “You are well within your right to make a complaint if you are unhappy about something Irene. The incident in question here today Irene came to [the supervisor’s] knowledge. If there are other things going on, you are well within your right to make a complaint.”

The Complainant also referenced external factors which she stated contributed to her not being in good form on the date in question. Ms McGreal committed to taking all of the factors raised into consideration prior to making any decision on whether to apply a disciplinary sanction. Ms McGreal reiterated a third time that the Complainant was entitled to raise a complaint in relation to any workplace issues should she wish.

Following deliberation, and due consideration of the circumstances, the Complainant was issued with a verbal warning on 15 July 2024, for the statement she made towards Employee B. A verbal warning is the lowest level of formal warning available under the Respondent’s disciplinary procedure.

Upon receipt of this warning, the Complainant responded to Ms McGreal stating that she did not feel that her statement that Employee B felt she was “untouchable” warranted a formal warning. She stated that she felt she should have received a verbal conversation only and that she felt she had been provoked.

Ms McGreal responded to the Complainant stating that, on the basis of her correspondence, the Respondent would proceed under the presumption that she wished to appeal the disciplinary sanction issued and arrange for an appeal officer to be appointed and a hearing arranged. Ms McGreal responded to points raised by the Complainant in her email and again informed her of her right to raise a complaint should she wish to do so. Details of the company EAP were also shared with the Complainant.

The Complainant responded stating that she did not in fact wish to appeal the disciplinary sanction. She also indicated that she did not wish to make any formal complaint, but that she was simply letting Ms McGreal know about the matters she mentioned, stating that “reporting is the final straw and I would like to avoid until every other approach is taken”.

Ms McGreal responded to this email to verify; 1. Whether the Complainant wished to appeal and 2. Confirming that while the Respondent was concerned about some of the allegations in the Complainant’s correspondence, it could not act on hearsay alone and that in some cases detail was missing as to who was alleged to have made the statements referenced. Ms McGreal confirmed that the Respondent would investigate any report of inappropriate language/ behaviour by a staff member and again asked the Complainant whether she wished to raise any issue formally.

Additionally, Ms McGreal outlined that she continued to engage with the Client supervisor who was monitoring interactions on the evening shift. The Complainant did not respond to this email. Ms McGreal arranged weekly calls with the supervisor to ensure that appropriate attention was given to any interpersonal issues should they arise.

Nothing further was reported to the company until 10 September 2024 when the Complainant made a health and safety report, alleging that Employee B had hit her in the hand with a bag. The Complainant did not raise a grievance with respect to this issue, but it was dealt with under the company’s normal procedure for reporting H&S incidents. As there was no witness to this alleged event, findings under the H&S fact-finding exercise were inconclusive. The Complainant was reviewed, and as no mark or injury was found, returned to her station. Employee B denied this allegation and for her part stated that she felt her character had been defamed by the Complainant making an allegation of this nature, and that she felt that the Complainant had been aggressive towards her while taking pieces.

Both employees were met with, offered mediation, and each employee was invited to meet HR for a discussion about behaviours and interpersonal issues on Wednesday 11 September 2024. The Complainant did not attend. The Complainant was informed that should she wish to take up the Respondent’s offer of mediation, she should submit a written request for same, which she did not do.

The Complainant submitted a flexible work request on 24 September 2024. She requested that her start and finish time be moved 15 minutes earlier to avoid it coinciding with that of Employee A. The Complainant did not indicate that there was any health and safety issue within the workplace itself and while due consideration was given to the request was denied as shift patterns are set on the client site and amending her working hours in the manner requested presented a significant operational challenge. Each station within the site is manned as required for the duration of a shift. Targets are set and productivity measured on a shift- basis.

The request was therefore discussed with the Client and due consideration given to same however it was ultimately proposed to the Complainant that she instead leave the premises 10 minutes after her shift ended.

While the Complainant did not receive her preferred outcome regarding the flexible work request, she did not seek to raise a grievance or pursue it further through internal procedures.

The Complainant resigned her employment on 30 September 2024.

Ms McGreal responded to the Complainant’s resignation on 3 October 2024, when she first saw same having been out of office in the days prior.

Ms McGreal noted:

“We do not have a recent report of Bullying, which is a very serious allegation, and I would encourage you to report this formally, outlining details of incidents, evidence, and witnesses. As you will be aware, we have addressed numerous reports and allegations in the last 2-3 years and held investigations and meetings that came from complaints from you and the team. Some of these complaints/reports were also against you. At all times, these investigations were extremely thorough, with the well-being of you and the impacted employees at the core, at all times. The recent events, which are alleged to have occurred outside work cannot be addressed by the company. Other incidents outlined by you that are alleged to have occurred in the workplace have not had sufficient evidence or witnesses. M&M Qualtech and [the Client] have spent much time looking into and discussing interpersonal issues related to you and others on the evening shift and have supported and advised as best as possible. You have been guided and advised on how best to manage interpersonal issues as they arise.”

The Complainant was offered the opportunity to finish up early which she did, and her last working day was 4 October. She was paid in lieu of notice up until the end of her contractual notice period which expired on 11 October 2024.

In the intervening period between the Complainant’s resignation on 30 September and Ms McGreal’s receipt of same on 3 October 2024, the Complainant had raised a further health and safety issue with her supervisor, on 2 October 2024 regarding an allegation against Employee B. A fact-finding exercise was again carried out but the outcome was inconclusive. Again, no grievance was raised in relation to this matter.

The Respondent’s position

Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 (as amended) defines dismissal in relation to an employee as, inter alia: “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 light of this definition, and established principles adopted by the Tribunal and the Courts, there exists a burden on the employee to demonstrate that: a) The employee was entitled to terminate the contract of employment by virtue of a demonstrated breach of contract on the part of the employer, or b) The employer had acted so unreasonably as to make the continuation of the employment intolerable, and it was reasonable for the employee to resign.

It is only when either of the above criteria have been met that the employee is entitled to terminate the contract of employment. It is the Respondent’s position that neither criterion has been met.

Contractual test

The Respondent at all times operated within the terms of the contract of employment between the parties. No contractual violation occurred. The Respondent would draw on the explanation of the contractual test for constructive dismissal as set out in Conway v Ulster Bank, UD474/1981 to confirm this position, in that the Respondent did not violate any term of the contract or organisation policies, express or otherwise. The Respondent’s actions were in no manner “a repudiation of the contract of employment”, and, did not demonstrate “that the Respondent no longer intended to be bound by the contract”. No change occurred in the contract to make it “so radically different from what was before”.

The Respondent fulfilled its contractual obligations, implied and otherwise, at all times. In light of this, it is the Respondent’s position that the termination of employment fails on a contractual test to be a constructive dismissal.

Reasonableness test

In respect to reasonableness, it is the Respondent’s position that there exist two interwoven factors to be considered:

(a) did the employer act unreasonably so as to render the relationship intolerable, and

(b) did the employee act reasonably in resigning, particularly in respect of exercising internal grievance procedures.

This is in accordance with established approaches as expressed by the Tribunal, for example in McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008, where the Tribunal stated: “The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer's conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.”

Reasonableness: the conduct of the employer

It is the Respondent’s position that it acted reasonably and fairly at all times, in accordance with its policies, best practice, and appropriate conduct. The Complainant was afforded every opportunity to improve her behaviour towards colleagues, was verbally counselled in relation to same prior to any formal warning being issued and was provided with advice and guidance in relation to management of issues informally as they arise. Where a warning was issued to her it was on the lower end of the disciplinary scale and she declined to appeal same. The Complainant and her colleagues were offered mediation, and HR continuously engaged with the supervisor on site with a view to monitoring any issues as they arose. The Complainant was further advised on multiple occasions of the formal options available to her under policy should she wish to proceed in that manner, however she opted not to raise any formal complaint or grievance in advance of her resignation.

Reasonableness: Exhausting Procedures

The Respondent has a comprehensive grievance procedure in place, through which all grievances are fully and fairly processed, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000).

It is the Respondent’s position that in advance of the Complainant furnishing her resignation, she could have utilised internal procedures to resolve any grievance or complaint, which she failed to do. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant acted in a hasty and unreasonable manner by resigning from her position in advance of exhausting internal procedures available to her, notwithstanding that these procedures were specifically notified to her by HR shortly before she tendered her resignation.

As such, the Complainant did not act reasonably in resigning her employment as she had not previously “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints” (Conway v Ulster Bank).

The obligation to exhaust internal grievance procedures extends even in situations whereby there exists a purported breach of contract. In Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, UD720/2006 the Tribunal found “the Complainant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the Complainant’s case” and stated: “in constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a Complainant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”. The Tribunal thus found in that case that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed.

Just as it is unacceptable in the case of a non-constructive dismissal for an employer to dismiss without recourse to fair and comprehensive procedures, so to it is insufficient for an employee to claim herself to have been constructively dismissed without utilising and exhausting grievance procedures. It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant fails to establish the burden of proof that her actions were reasonable. As in Travers v MBNA, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s failure to utilise/exhaust internal grievance procedures is detrimental to her claim.

The Complainant failed to provide the Respondent an opportunity to fully respond to her concerns by failing to utilise any of the formal channels to seek to address any issues she may have had.

In Fitzsimons v Mount Carmel Hospital, UD855/2007, in the complainant’s letter of resignation a complaint was raised against the complainant’s manager. The Respondent conducted a “full investigation” and extended an invitation to return to work. The respondent further “was open to meeting requests and provisions which may reasonably attach to the said return to work” and an offer was made to “bring in a mediator to facilitate a harmonious return to the workplace if that was possible”. The complainant in that case rejected the offer of return on the grounds that her relationship with her manager had deteriorated so much.

The Tribunal stated: “It is regrettable that this final step of acceptance of the return to work offer was not taken and the Tribunal finds it was unreasonable for the Applicant not to have seen this process through. The Employment Appeals Tribunal’s primary function is to ensure that internal workplace procedures are fairly applied to individual employees and there is an onus on employees to engage fully in these procedures where a clear effort is being made to overcome past difficulties.”

By virtue of this, the Complainant’s resignation does not fulfil the test of reasonableness and thus cannot be determined to be a constructive dismissal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is the Respondent’s position that it in no way repudiated the contract of employment but rather operated the employment relationship at all times within the parameters of that contractual relationship. Furthermore, it is the Respondent’s position that its interactions with the Complainant were at all times reasonable, and that, conversely, the Complainant’s action in failing to utilise and exhaust the internal grievance procedures amounted to unreasonableness on her part. In light of that, it is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise, from her employment.

Without prejudice to the above, in the event that the Adjudication Officer were to find that a constructive dismissal did occur, the Respondent notes that, per the Complainant’s WRC complaint form, she had obtained alternative work at the time of her resignation. Therefore, no loss of earnings applies. If the Complainant has failed to retain employment following her resignation, this is not a matter for the Respondent. Compensation for loss of earnings can only be awarded to the extent that the loss can be attributed to the Respondent. It is the Complainant’s responsibility to demonstrate that she has made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss. The documents submitted to the WRC would appear to indicate that she has applied for roles that may not be suitable for her, albeit that the Respondent is not aware of any issues regarding her eye. Furthermore, no evidence has been submitted to the WRC to indicate that the Complainant has sought work in other environments such as retail and hospitality notwithstanding that she has retail experience.

At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent clarified that the supervisor was not the Respondent’s but the Client’s employee. Employee A and Employee B were both employees of the Respondent.

It was emphasised that the Respondent takes any allegations seriously, but it could not take an action against an employee if a complaint was not raised. The Complainant wanted Employee A to be moved without any proper process. Employee B raised a grievance and, hence, the process that followed and the warning that was issued. While the Complainant said that Gardaí advised her to move shifts, she did not consider this option as she did not want to lose her allowance.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of Ms Joan McGreal, HR Manager

Ms McGreal outlined the background to the Respondent. She said that a named client rents a facility from the Respondent and some 80 employees work for the Client. HR department is located in the front of the building and has an open-door policy. The Complainant would have previously called up to HR with queries. The Complainant had previously made allegations and an investigation was carried out in 2022/2023. Some allegations were upheld, others were not. Ms McGreal said that she spoke with the Complainant quite a lot at that time. HR and the supervisor gave a presentation to all staff regarding values and respect.

Ms McGreal said that the production teams are generally kept together. Requirements depend on orders. Some people are trained on different processes and can work in different areas of the facility to cover breaks, absences etc. Employees do not decide where they work, if they are moved it would be based on the Client’s requirements. If a request is made to change an employee’s shift, a vacancy has to be available on the shift requested.

Ms McGreal said that the Complainant had never approached the Respondent to change her shift but to change her start/finish times. This would affect the operation of the whole team. Had the Complainant raise a grievance, a move could have been considered.

Ms McGreal said that the Respondent’s policies are available to staff in the HR platform, which can be accessed from a mobile phone, a PC, or an iPad provided by the Respondent.  If a policy is updated, a message pops up on the employee’s screen, the updated policy has to be open and read before the employee can move on. The Respondent has an open-door policy, talks a lot about values and respect. The Complainant attended and signed an induction document which addressed the Respondent’s policies and procedures including grievance and disciplinary procedures.

The grievance policy provides for an informal and formal process, and for an external stage. The dignity at work policy also explains the complaints procedure. Employees have right to feel safe at work, be respected and treat others with respect. The Respondent tries to educate staff and make sure they understand the formal and informal processes and the actions that could be taken post-investigation. On occasion, HR would proactively make calls to supervisors. The supervisor in this case tried to talk to the employees.

Ms McGreal said that Employee A was in her 50s, she joined in 2020, there were no issues with her performance. Employee B was in her mid-20s. She initially joined in 2020 on the day shift and then in 2023 on night shifts. There were no issues with her performance.  There was nothing to suggest any particular friendship between them.

As there was some turnover of staff and the person who the Complainant complained of in 2022 was no longer with the Respondent at the relevant time, so the knowledge of the 2022 events was limited.

Ms McGreal said that the supervisor communicated a message from Employee A regarding the allegations made to the Gardaí by the Complainant. While Employee A denied them, she wanted HR to be aware of the matter. At that stage, the Complainant did not say anything to the Respondent. The Respondent did not act on the information as the incident was alleged to have occurred after work, outside the workplace, there was no contact from the Complainant or from the Gardaí.

When the incident with Employee B happened, it was reported to HR, the Complainant admitted she made a comment to Employee B. The Complainant was invited to a meeting and she decided to attend with no representation. Ms McGreal said that it was a very challenging meeting, the Complainant was bringing forward a lot of what other people had said, matters not relevant to the issue at hand. Ms McGreal said that she was concerned about some of the Complainant’s comments and advised the Complainant that, if there were issues, she needed to report them and raise them separately. The Respondent could not act of statements such as “employee X told me about employee Y”, it was commentary on other employees and incidents. Ms McGreal said that she heard the Complainant, but any allegations would have to be made properly through a process.

Ms McGreal said that she took on board the Complainant’s service, attendance, great record, her personal circumstances, and decided that the lowest sanction was appropriate. The Complainant was afforded an appeal. Ms McGreal said that she was trying to get the point across that if the Complainant raised a grievance, the Respondent would be able to investigate any concerns she had.

Ms McGreal said that the event of 10 September 2024 was reported as a health and safety matter and it was dealt with as such.

Ms McGreal said that the Complainant made a request for a change in her start/finish time. The Complainant indicated that she was advised by her GP to request the change on medical grounds. However, no medical evidence was furnished. The Respondent reviewed the shifts, the schedule and the request but was unable to approve it. The change would have a knock-on effect on other shifts. The Complainant made reference to an issue outside of work, she said that it did not help if the two people in question finish work at the same time. The Respondent proposed instead that the Complainant comes earlier and stays in the building for extra 10 minutes.

Ms McGreal said that the Complainant raised no grievance and only in her resignation she mentioned bullying. Ms McGreal replied to the Complainant and encouraged her to report this formally even after she had handed in her notice. The Complainant had previously retracted her resignation and the same could happen on this occasion. She also could have requested to move shifts.  

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides the following definition of “dismissal”:

“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.”

The term “constructive” dismissal is not specifically provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. However, it is a term commonly understood to refer to that part of the definition Section 1(b) of the Act (as quoted above).

There are two situations envisaged in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal; where the employer’s conduct amounts to breach of contract or repudiation of the contract (the ‘contract test’) or is such in relation to the employee that it was reasonable for the employee to resign (the ‘reasonableness test’).  

The ‘contract’ test was summarised by Lord Denning MR in Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 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. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer’s conduct.  … [T]he conduct must … be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once …”

Constructive dismissal may arise where the employer’s conduct was such that it was reasonable for the employee to terminate his or her employment.  Lord Denning MR addresses this concept in the same case as follows:

“It is that the employer must act reasonably in his treatment of his employees. If he conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, the employee is justified in leaving.”

The reasonableness test “….asks whether the employer conducted his or her affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer and, if so, she is justified in leaving…” (Cedarglade Limited v Tina Hilban UDD 1843). Thus, it may be reasonable for an employee to terminate the contract because of the conduct of the employer even if the employer had adhered to the contractual terms.

It is well-established in this context that there is a reciprocal duty on an employee to act reasonably in terms of affording an employer the opportunity to address any issues.  This is clearly set out in Reid v Oracle EMEA Ltd. UD1350/2014 where the EAT stated: 

“It is incumbent on any employee to utilise and exhaust all internal remedies made available to him or her unless he can show that the said remedies are unfair.”  

In this regard, the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. UD474/1981 held that a complainant had not acted reasonably in resigning “without first having substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints.”

In Mary Kirrane v Barncarroll Area Development Co Ltd. UDD1635 the Labour Court held that the person complaining of constructive dismissal must also access available grievance procedures to deal with the circumstances which led him/her to resign. 

In Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 ELR, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“There is implied in a contract of employment a mutual obligation that the employer and the employee will not without reasonable and proper cause conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between them.  The term is implied by law and is incident to all contracts of employment unless expressly excluded.  The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.”

In a case where the Complainant is claiming constructive dismissal, the fact of dismissal is in dispute between the parties, and the Complainant must establish that her 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 her decision to resign from her employment resulted from either a repudiatory breach of her contract of employment by the employer or such unreasonable behaviour by the employer that she could not fairly be expected to put up with it any longer.

Regardless of whichever test is applied, the threshold for constructive dismissal is very high (Nicola Coffey v Connect Family Resource Centre Ltd, UD 1126/2014 and Calderon & Others v Lootah & Others, UD1219/2013).

In this case, the Complainant did not assert that there has been a repudiatory breach of contract by the Respondent.

I am, therefore, required to determine whether the Respondent engaged in conduct which made it reasonable for the Complainant to terminate her contract. 

The type of conduct which can give rise to a constructive dismissal cannot be petty or minor but must be something serious or significant which goes to the root of the relationship between the employer and employee: Joyce v Brothers of Charity UD407/2008; ELR 328.

It is well settled law that an employee must make reasonable efforts to bring the grievance to the attention of the employer before resigning. In O’Gorman v Glen Tyre Company Ltd. UD2314/2010, the EAT noted:

“[I]t is crucial in a constructive dismissal case that the claimant informs the employer fully of the complaints being made against him and the employer be given an opportunity to resolve the issues”.

At a minimum the employee will be expected to utilise the company grievance procedure. In Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. UD 474/1981, the EAT noted that “it is not for the Tribunal to say whether this procedure would have produced a decision more favourable . . . but it is possible”.

In Beatty v Bayside Supermarkets UD 142/1987 the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that;-

“…it is reasonable to expect that the procedures laid down in such agreements be substantially followed in appropriate cases by employer and employee as the case may be, this is the view expressed and followed by the Tribunal in Conway v Ulster Bank Limited UD 474/1981. In this case the Tribunal considers that the procedure was not followed by the claimant and that it was unreasonable of him not to do so. Accordingly, we consider that applying the test of reasonableness to the claimant’s resignation he was not constructively dismissed”.

In Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, (UD720/2006), the Complainant’s role was changed by the employer in a manner which was “not in keeping with the contract of employment”. While the Complainant in this matter initiated the company’s internal grievance procedures, he resigned without lodging a final appeal. In this instance the Tribunal found that,

“…the claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case”

and,

“…in constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”.

It is also well settled law that an employee may be justified in resigning without utilising the grievance procedure in some circumstances. In Mr O v An Employer (no. 2) [2005] 16 ELR 132, the court accepted:

“. . . in normal circumstances a complainant who seeks to invoke the reasonableness test in furtherance of such a claim must also act reasonably by providing the employer with an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have. However, there is authority for the proposition that this is not a fixed or universally applicable rule and there can be situations in which a failure to give prior formal notice of grievance will not be fatal”.  

Applying the law to this particular case, it is necessary to examine the events around the Complainant’s resignation.  In this case, the Complainant, in her resignation letter stated:

“It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel I have been left with no choice. I feel I have been bullied in the workplace, and senior’s/management has been no help or support to me. I feel I have been let down. I now need to look after my own health and well-being as this environment is toxic on every level”

From the evidence before me, it appears that interpersonal difficulties developed between the Complainant and Employees A and B. It was apparent from the Complainant’s submissions and testimony that she was distressed and significantly affected by the situation. The Complainant gave evidence that other employees’ attitudes towards her changed, and that she experienced laughter, sniggering, and whispering directed at her. When she brought it to the Respondent’s attention that she believed she might have been subjected to inappropriate behaviour, the Respondent repeatedly advised her to lodge a formal complaint and provided her with copies of both the Grievance Policy and the Dignity at Work Policy.

This was addressed in the Respondent’s letter of 15 July 2024 and further, in the email of 19 July 2024, where Ms McGreal stated that;-

“M&M Qualtech and the supervisors of M&M Qualtech staff will always support and monitor behaviours, and I can confirm that the supervisor on duty has done this and is doing so. The company will act accordingly on reported incidents and investigate as appropriate. The company cannot act on hearsay or opinion…”;

“where inappropriate language or behaviour is occurring, this can be reported to your supervisor or HR with the details of the instance, including the date, time, any evidence of the incident, and names of any witnesses. We are committed to maintaining a respectful work environment for all our employees”;

“We are not aware of any incident from July 12th. Again, should you wish to raise a complaint, you can do so to your supervisor or HR with the detail outlined.”

“If you wish to raise a formal complaint relating to another person whom you feel, as you describe, “has continued to provoke me,” you can do so by raising this with your supervisor or HR in writing, outlining dates, times, descriptions of the incidents, evidence and names of any witnesses. This can then be investigated.”

In her email of 23 July 2024, Ms McGreal asked the Complainant if she wished to raise a formal complaint/grievance and stated that the Respondent “will act and investigate on any reports of inappropriate language alleged to have been said by one employee to another or inappropriate language alleged or witnessed to be used in the work environment. Some of the comments you refer to below are very concerning but we don’t have any detail on who is alleged to have said them.”

The Complainant chose not to raise a grievance. She acknowledged that she did not wish to bring matters that occurred outside the workplace (albeit during her commute home) into work, and she hoped instead to resolve the situation informally with her colleagues. This approach was clearly unsuccessful, however, she repeatedly disregarded the Respondent’s guidance to raise a grievance if she had any concerns.

In essence, in a constructive dismissal claim the burden of proof rests with the employee, who must prove that their decision to resign was both justified and reasonable. In effect, the employee must demonstrate that they had no option but to resign. The notion places a very high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that they acted reasonably. This includes affording the employer an adequate and reasonable opportunity to address and remedy any grievance/issue and exhausting all internal procedures in an attempt to resolve his grievance with the employer.

Having carefully considered the submissions and evidence proffered in this case, I accept that the Complainant feels aggrieved and that she is sincere in this. I accept the Complainant feels she has been treated poorly by coworkers. While I have every sympathy for the Complainant with regard to difficulties she was experiencing, very little was proffered by way of facts or evidence that would support a claim for constructive dismissal on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the Respondent.  I am of the view that the Complainant has failed to meet the threshold with respect to constructive dismissal. 

It is an unavoidable fact in this case that the Complainant resigned without engaging in any attempt at raising a grievance and she would have been familiar with the grievance process as she had utilised it in the past. I am mindful of the Labour Court in the case of Mr O v An Employer (no2) [2005] 16 ELR 132 where it was held as follows:

“The Court accepts that in normal circumstances a complainant who seeks to invoke the reasonableness test in furtherance of such a claim must also act reasonably by providing the employer with an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have.” 

While I accept that there is authority for the proposition that this is not a universally applicable rule and that there can be circumstances where a failure to give prior formal notice of a grievance would not be fatal, there was nothing put forward to suggest that the circumstances of this case would fall into this category.

Having carefully considered the evidence and submissions, and applying the relevant law, I find that the Complainant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise.  In the circumstances I find that the Complainant resigned from her employment of her own volition and was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. 

The Complainant has not discharged the burden placed on her by the Act. I am not persuaded by the Complainant that resignation was her only option.  Accordingly, I find that she has failed to establish she was constructively dismissed, and her complaint cannot succeed.

For the reasons set out above I have decided this complaint is not well founded. 

Constructive dismissal – no grievance raised