Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Ms Geraldine Foy

Ms Jan Hayden of 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-00071014-001

22/04/2025

The Complainant worked for the Respondent for approximately 4 years. He resigned in March 2025 after a period of sick leave. Prior to his sick leave he had been working under a new team lead who he alleged was dismissive, rude and subjected him to unreasonable and unnecessary workloads and time pressures.

He has claimed he was constructively dismissed.

The Complainant’s representative, Ms Foy, made oral and written submissions on his behalf. The Complainant gave evidence under oath.

In 2024 he began reporting to a new team lead for part of his workload. She continuously assigned him too much work and failed to recognise his other obligations. She also insisted that work had to be done in a way that clients would object to which would result in it needing to be redone. The Complainant was not listened to when he pushed back against these issues. He then went to his line manager who, to his surprise, made clear that any problems were interpersonal problems being caused by the Complainant and not the team lead. Shortly thereafter the Complainant had an extremely odd interaction with a senior manager who seemed to refer to a totally unfounded rumour about the Complainant which he had never heard before. This was in the context of a conversation about the Complainant’s OCD.

The Complainant went on sick leave and later resigned. He was sufficiently aware of his own health to know that further engagement with the Respondent and an investigation would have resulted in a serious episode related to his OCD.

The Respondent’s representative Ms Hayden made oral and written submissions on their behalf. The Respondent’s HR Department were actively engaging with the Complainant at the time he resigned and were planning to proceed with an investigation into his complaints. The Complainant decided to resign before allowing them the opportunity to do so.

The Law

The Unfair Dismissals Act provides that a dismissal can occur where an employee resigns.

This is outlined in section 1 of the act which defines dismissal as to include:

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 above text places burden on the employee to establish not only was their decision to resign reasonable but that it was due to the unreasonable conduct of the employer, or as the UK Court of Appeal put it in the seminal case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221:

“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. He can go, with or without giving notice, and claim compensation for unfair dismissal”

It has been determined by the Labour Court, and the Employment Tribunal before it that for an employee to succeed in a constructive dismissal claim on this “reasonableness” test they must have tried and exhausted any potential internal remedies. They must engage with any reasonable attempts made by the employer to resolve the issues which are driving them to resign. This obligation has been recognised consistently in a variety of determinations, not least McCormack v Dunnes Stores UD1421/2008, Beatty v Bayside Supermarkets UD142/1987, Conway v Ulster Bank Limited 475/1981, Travers v MBNA Ltd., UD 720/20.

The Complainant is not the only employee who enjoys the protection of this act. The Respondent must investigate any claim of misconduct or bullying thoroughly and in line with the accused employees’ rights to fair procedure. They cannot act solely based on a complaint. While internal investigations can be lengthy and stressful, resigning without engaging with them will normally be fatal for a claim for constructive dismissal, otherwise employers would be put in the position of having claims succeed against them in relation to one employee for having followed the law in relation to another. Such a scenario would obviously fall outside the “reasonableness” test outlined above.

Findings of Fact

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for approximately four years. He was regarded as a strong performer and received a pay increase in November 2024.

The Complainant gave evidence that his role involved demanding project timelines. Difficulties arose in late 2024 following the appointment of a new team lead. The Complainant described this individual as abrupt in manner, assigning excessive work and imposing unrealistic deadlines. He outlined a number of disagreements regarding work priorities and methodology and at least one interaction escalated into a heated exchange.

The Complainant raised workload and interpersonal concerns with his immediate line manager, who advised him to address matters directly with the team lead. The Complainant did so but things did not improve. When he raised these issues again his line manager made clear he had accepted the team lead’s version of events and blamed the Complainant for the difficulties.

The Complainant gave evidence that his mental health deteriorated at this time. The Complainant has successfully lived with and managed OCD and as part of this he is able to recognise he was heading towards a serious deterioration in his health.

The following day the Complainant spoke with a more senior manager who enquired about his wellbeing and the impact of his OCD which that manager believed they could relate to because of a close family member of theirs also having OCD. The Complainant’s evidence was that the conversation then took a very strange direction and that senior manager made reference to the Complainant potentially having left an earlier role due to an obsession with a colleague. This was phrased in such a way in which it was not clear if there was an existing rumour or the Senior Manager was raising an abstract question. No such issue had ever arisen before and the Senior Manager’s comments understandably caused the Complainant upset and concern for his reputation.

The Complainant commenced sick leave from mid-December 2025. While on sick leave he had periodic contact with HR. An occupational health report was arranged and, in early March, he was deemed fit to engage with HR processes. The Complainant was aware of the Respondent’s grievance procedures. He did not feel he could pursue his concerns as it would essentially mean making complaints against his team lead, his line manager and the senior manager. He did not believe his health would allow this or that complaints would succeed against such an array of people, so he resigned.

Conclusion

The Complainant believed that his line manager had formed a view on the problems he was experiencing from the team lead but this does not render internal procedures futile. The Respondent had an established grievance process and a HR function which the Complainant was  aware of and there is nothing to suggest that they could not have facilitated an independent investigation.

I accept that the Complainant made the best decision for his health that in all the circumstances resigning was subjectively reasonable. However, the decision to resign was not due to unreasonable conduct of the Respondent who, at the time of resignation was offering him an avenue to raise complaints and have them investigated.

I find that the Complainant has not established that he was constructively dismissed within the meaning of the act.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.