Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amanda  Mc Inerney

Tesco Ireland

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Dajana Sinik, IBEC

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-00070195-001

24/03/2025

The complaint was submitted on 24 March 2025 at 11:10:29 am by the Complainant  who previously held the position of Operations Manager with the Respondent. The complainant’s workplace was located at the Tesco Extra Shopping Centre, Fonthill Road, Clondalkin, Dublin 22 and her employment commenced in May 2018. She reports having received notice in March 2025, with her employment ending on, or about, the 18 March 2025.

The Complainant sets out that they were constructively dismissed due to the actions of the Respondent.

The complainant reports that incidents occurring in December 2025 had a significant impact on her wellbeing and confidence in the workplace. She states that she had maintained good attendance and commitment throughout her employment, but that the events on those dates represented the culmination of what she describes as long‑standing tension and unresolved issues.

According to the complainant, during those two days she was repeatedly criticised by a manager, in a manner she perceived to be public and directed in a way that left her feeling humiliated and distressed. She reports that the experience caused her to leave the workplace in tears and that the events subsequently led to feelings of guilt and self‑blame. She states that these incidents have had an ongoing negative effect on her mental health and confidence.

The complainant indicates that she has since taken up alternative employment with a lower rate of pay, resulting in a significant reduction of earnings, compared with her previous earnings with the Respondent. She notes that this change in employment was not made lightly and expresses regret that her employment ended under the circumstances described.

She further asserts that the behaviour exhibited by the manager in question is known among staff and that, to her knowledge, it has previously contributed to workplace conflict and staff departures. She states that while she recognises that store management carries significant responsibilities, she believes that the behaviour she experienced was inappropriate. She reports that she is reluctant to pursue the matter formally but considers accountability important to ensure that similar issues do not arise for other employees.

The complainant’s stated intention in providing this account is to highlight the impact of the incidents on her and to contribute to a safer and more respectful work environment.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant has brought a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977–2015, alleging constructive dismissal. The Respondent references the Acts, which defines dismissal to include situations where an employee resigns due to the employer’s conduct, provided the conduct would entitle the employee to terminate the contract without notice.

According to the Respondent, established case law requires an employee alleging constructive dismissal to meet one of two tests:

1. The Contractual Test – demonstrating that the employer committed a fundamental breach of contract.

Or,

1. The Reasonableness Test – demonstrating that the employer acted so unreasonably as to render continued employment intolerable, and that the employee acted reasonably in resigning, including substantially utilising internal grievance procedures.

The Respondent states that the Complainant resigned voluntarily and that neither of the tests required to establish constructive dismissal has been met. It relies on the principles set out in Conway v Ulster Bank (UD474/1981), which emphasise the need for an employee to exhaust internal procedures before resigning, and McCormack v Dunnes Stores (UD1421/2008), which confirms the high burden on employees to demonstrate both employer unreasonableness and their own reasonableness in resigning.

Contractual Test

The Respondent maintains that it acted at all times within the terms of the Complainant’s employment contract and that no breach occurred. It states that there were no repudiation of the contract and no indication that the Respondent no longer intended to be bound by the agreement.

The Respondent notes that it did not wish to lose the Complainant and states that, upon receiving her resignation, it asked her on three occasions to reconsider. After the resignation was submitted, an investigator was appointed to examine the grievance despite the Complainant’s decision not to participate. The Respondent describes these steps as part of its standard process for addressing workplace issues.

The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s assertion that the events of December constituted a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Reasonableness Test

The Respondent outlines that the Complainant resigned with immediate effect on 28 February 2025.

On 4 March 2025, the Respondent issued a written response inviting her to engage with the internal grievance procedure and indicating that the resignation would not be accepted pending further discussion. The Respondent states that an investigation commenced at that point.

The Complainant declined the invitation to engage and confirmed that her resignation stood. The Respondent made a further attempt to encourage participation in the grievance process on 11 March, but the Complainant again declined on 12 March. The Respondent submits that it acted reasonably and in good faith throughout this period, and that the Complainant did not take up opportunities to address her concerns internally.

The Respondent further notes statements in the Complainant’s correspondence referring to seeking compensation. It argues that these statements, along with the Complainant’s two‑month absence from 14 December to 27 February and her commencement of new employment shortly after resigning, indicate that her departure was voluntary and planned.

The Respondent also refers to Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd (UD720/2006), where a failure to exhaust internal procedures proved fatal to a constructive dismissal claim. It asserts that the Complainant similarly did not substantially utilise the grievance process, which was available to her and detailed in both the Grievance Policy and her contract of employment.

Additional Points Raised by the Respondent

The Respondent notes that the Complainant worked within a large organisational structure with multiple reporting lines. It submits that the Complainant had limited daily interaction with the manager involved in the alleged incident and argues that this context does not support the claim that the working environment had become intolerable.

The Respondent states that the Complainant did not report the alleged incidents from 13–14 December at the time and did not raise them until her resignation letter of 28 February. The Respondent submits that the delay prevented it from addressing or investigating the issue promptly.

The Respondent maintains that had the matter been raised earlier, it could have been addressed within existing procedures. It states that its attempts to engage after the resignation further demonstrate that avenues for resolution remained available.

Conclusion

The Respondent asserts that no breach of contract occurred and that it acted reasonably throughout. It submits that the Complainant did not exhaust the internal grievance procedures and that her resignation was voluntary. On this basis, the Respondent concludes that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed and requests that the Adjudication Officer find in its favour.

Case Law Cited by the Respondent

Conway v Ulster Bank (UD474/1981),

McCormack v Dunnes Stores (UD1421/2008)

Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd (UD720/2006)

In constructive dismissal cases, the law requires an employee to use all internal procedures and remedies before resigning, unless they can show that the process was unfair.

The Respondent’s representative has clearly set out the relevant legislation and case law on constructive dismissal. In this case, the Complainant did not make use of the internal procedures available to address the issues they experienced. Although the Complainant stated that they were too distressed to engage with the process and were unsure who to complain to—particularly because the person they wished to complain about was a senior manager—I cannot accept this as a sufficient explanation. The Complainant was also a senior manager, and no evidence was provided to show that they were prevented from using the procedure or that they were misinformed about how it worked.

I acknowledge that the Complainant wishes to prevent similar treatment happening to others and that they described the serious personal and family impact of the behaviour they experienced. However, under the Unfair Dismissals Act, the question I must decide is narrower: whether the resignation amounted to an unfair dismissal in law.

It is fair to note that the Respondent did offer to investigate the issues raised, and that these concerns have, at least, now been brought to their attention. It is also clear from the evidence that the Complainant was deeply affected by their experience.

The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s account in detail nor present witnesses on this point, but they were not required to do so to defend their position.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases rests with the Complainant. They must show that they were justified in resigning and that the employer’s behaviour made their position untenable. The Respondent has pointed to case law supporting their view that no breach of contract occurred and that they acted reasonably where the internal processes were offered.

The Respondent argues that the Complainant did not exhaust the internal grievance procedures and that her resignation was voluntary. On that basis, they submit that this was not a constructive dismissal and ask that I find in their favour.

Having considered the evidence, I have to find that the Complainant did not follow the internal grievance process. As a result, their complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 cannot be upheld, given the submissions, legislation and case law presented.

For the reasons outlined I must find that the complaint is not well-founded

Constructive Dismissal, Internal Grievance Procedures, Burden of Proof, Reasonableness of Resignation, Employer’s Investigation Offer, Exhaustion of Remedies