Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kacper  Czerpak

Incus Power Ltd

Representatives

  Self - Represented

 Self - Represented

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-00071177-001

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00071177-003

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071177-004

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071177-005

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071177-006

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071177-007

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071177-008

28/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071177-011

07/05/2025

While the Complainant lodged 8 separate claims on his Complaint Form; at the commencement of the hearing, he advised that the complaints he was proceeding with were as follows CA-00071177-001 under the Unfair Dismissals Act, CA-00071177-003 under the Employment Equality Acts and CA-00071177-004 under Payment of Wages Act. The remaining claims were withdrawn by the Complainant.

The Complainant states that he commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2023 as a general operative.

The Complainant states that during his employment with the Respondent, he was assigned to a team working on a switchgear board for a named company. He states that the team included several members who each had different tasks. The Complainant states that it was commonplace for the manager or supervisor to move him between different teams to assist on other boards when required and consequently he did not work on every part of that specific board from start to completion.

The Complainant states that around mid April 2025, an issue was identified with a particular switchgear board. The Complainant states that the manager Ms F went around asking members of his group who was responsible for the problem. The Complainant states that none of the staff said it was him but later some employees put the blame on the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that he was certain that he had not made the mistake in question and immediately requested that Ms F check the CCTV cameras above the workstation to confirm who had actually done the work in question. The Complainant states that despite his request, the cameras were not reviewed and he was still blamed for the issue.

The Complainant states that he felt that this was very unfair as there was no proof that he was at fault and several members of staff had worked on that same board. The Complainant believes that he was singled out and treated differently from others. The Complainant states that he was also the youngest person in the group and felt that this contributed to him getting the blame instead of been given a chance to explain or for the matter to be investigated properly.

The Complainant contends that the situation caused him a lot of stress and embarrassment in front of his colleagues. It also damaged his working relationship with management and contributed to the subsequent breakdown of trust regarding his pay and treatment at work. He states that he tried to resolve the issues in a professional manner but did not feel that his concerns were taken seriously or handled in a fair manner.

The Complainant states that on the day in question concerning the quality issue of the company switchgear board, he had requested earlier that morning the possibility of a pay rise. He states that later that same day, the incident occurred which left him feeling embarrassed, upset and not fairly treated. The Complainant states that he took the following 2 days off as he was stressed out by the situation.

The Complainant states that when he returned to work on the Friday, he spoke to his manager Ms F about two issues, his missing payslip and his missing wages for the week he had just worked. Ms F advised him that the company had overpaid his holidays and that they would not be paying him for his recent work because they were balancing out that overpayment. Ms F stated that the Complainant had been overpaid by three days and that his current work would be counted as repayment.

The Complainant states that he was shocked by this because he was aware that it was not correct nor was it legal. The Complainant asserts that he politely asked again for his wages and payslip stating that it was the company’s legal obligation to provide both. The Complainant states Ms F refused his request again. The Complainant states that he went home that day very upset as he had worked several days without pay and felt cheated by the company.

The Complainant states that having done some research he became aware that an employer is legally required to provide payslips under the Payment of Wages legislation and to pay employees for all hours worked. The Complainant states that on his return to work the following Monday, he asked Ms F on two occasions for a meeting with her and the Managing Director Mr H to resolve this issue. Ms F said she would arrange a meeting when she had time but was too busy at that juncture. The Complainant states that he then sent Ms F a letter explaining that if his wages and payslips were not provided, he would have no option but to report the matter to the WRC.

The Complainant states that Ms F appeared angry when she received the letter and told him to go upstairs to the meeting room. The Complainant states that at the meeting Ms F claimed that the Complainant was threatening her. The Complainant states that Ms F said he could go ahead to the WRC as they would “laugh me off” and she stated again that it is not illegal to withhold his wages in circumstances where there was a holiday overpayment. The Complainant states that Ms F became angry and did not wish to continue and proceeded to walk out of the meeting.

The Complainant states that after Ms F left the meeting, he tried to continue working but he was very upset. He states that he felt the trust between him and management had completely broken down. He had tried to resolve the issue on numerous occasions but to no avail. The Complainant states that he wrote a short note stating “I quit, pleasure to work with you” handed it into the office and left. The Complainant states that his contract required two weeks’ notice but the manager had previously told him he could leave at any time and did not need to give notice. The Complainant states that given the manner in which he was treated he felt he had no option but to leave and report the withholding of pay and payslips to the WRC.

In summary, the Complainant states that on 18 April 2025, he should have received his weekly pay and payslip for the 35 hours he worked that week. He states that his total pay due for that period was €472.50 but he did not receive either the pay or the payslip at that juncture. He states that he was only paid same after he reported the matter to the WRC. He states that this delayed payment caused financial hardship to him and directly impacted his ability to continue working.

The Complainant states that the Respondents actions left him with no alternative but to resign and in those circumstances, he is claiming constructive dismissal.              

The Respondent states that the Complainant joined the company on 26 June 2023 for Summer employment. It states that a part-time contract was issued to the Complainant at this time.  The Respondent states that in Quarter 4 of 2024, after two years in college, the Complainant sought additional workdays which were subsequently granted. It states that on 1 January 2025 the Complainant was issued with a permanent contract.

The Respondent states that a quality control issue arose on 15 April 2025; after carrying out a review, it was confirmed that the Complainant performed the work in question. The Respondent states that when approached by management, the Complainant admitted to carrying out the work stating “Yes I did do it, what’s wrong with it”. The Respondent states that the Complainant was informed that the workmanship was poor and that the issue had occurred on a previous panel completed by the same team. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant and another operative were required to report to Ms F the following day with a view to establishing if training would be required.

The Respondent states that the Complainant reacted defensively but that Ms K stated that it was not about blame but a requirement to maintain company standards. it was submitted that when these issues were previously raised with the Complainant by the MD of the company, the Complainant stated he “didn’t care”. The Respondent states that when the Complainant was informed that his attitude was disrespectful and unacceptable, he replied “I don’t care about him and I can get a job somewhere else”.   The Respondent states that the Complainant left the premises before 4 pm and informed another staff member that he would not be returning.    The Respondent states at that juncture, the company understood that the Complainant had resigned.

The Respondent states that subsequently the Complainant submitted a request for 2 days annual leave, claiming entitlement based on his remaining balance shown on Citrus HR (he believed these days were due as these were the only 2 days remaining out of 20 available because he had already taken 12 days holidays  and 6 days were allocated for Christmas 2025). The Respondent states that the request was rejected as the company holiday request procedure had not been followed.

The Respondent states that the Complainant did not attend work on the Wednesday and Thursday of that week. The Respondent states that on the Friday morning, he arrived on site and in an aggressive manner demanded payment, stating he had not been paid. The Respondent asserts that he was informed that due to his absence and previous overpayment (having used annual leave not yet accrued), his pay had been withheld pending clarification.

The Respondent states that the Complainant stated he was leaving the company but after further discussions, he claimed that he would continue working if he received payment. Ms F stated that in good faith, she arranged to withdraw cash for him (due to a bank holiday, a bank transfer would have been delayed) but upon her return to the office from the bank, she discovered that the Complainant had already left the building.

The Respondent states that on 22 May, the Complainant returned to the office and demanded to speak privately. Ms F stated that as production was in progress and the MD was on annual leave, the Complainant was advised that a meeting could be arranged later. The Respondent states that an hour later, the Complainant approached Ms F again and handed her a handwritten letter stating that unless he received his payslip and payment by 4 pm, he would consider further action including pursuing a complaint to the WRC.    

During the subsequent meeting, the Complainant was reminded of the previous discussions and the overpayment issue. Ms F states that she attempted to clarify the complexity surrounding the calculation of the Complainant’s final pay particularly considering the advance payment he had received for vacation days not worked. The Respondent states that the meeting ended abruptly when the Complainant verbally abused Ms F referring to her as a “useless bitch”. This was witnessed by staff in the open office. The Respondent asserts that the tone and vulgarity of the exchange can be substantiated by witnesses present at the time. Subsequently, one hour later the Complainant submitted another written note to Ms F this time indicating his resignation stating, “I quit today”.

In conclusion, the Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims and states that the Complainant resigned of his own accord on 22 April 2025. The Respondent states that the company again on 3 May 2025 sought clarity from the Complainant on his formal position in respect of his resignation and any outstanding grievances. It states that no grievance was raised despite a clear and accessible grievance procedure. It states that there was no conduct by the Respondent amounting to a fundamental breach of contract that resulted in the Complainant having no reasonable alternative but to resign.

The Respondent states that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act and confirmed that all monies owing to the Complainant were paid to him by the company.

The Respondent states that there is no basis to the Complainant’s claim of discrimination on grounds of age under the Employment Equality Acts.

Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act

The Relevant Law – Constructive Dismissal

 Section 1(b) provides as follows:

 “dismissal,” in relation to an employee, means –

(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 Act places a high burden on a Complainant in a constructive dismissal case. To succeed in a claim of constructive dismissal, the Complainant must show that his decision to resign in April 2025 resulted from either a repudiatory breach of his contract of employment or such unreasonable behaviour by the Respondent that he was justified in believing that he could not continue any longer in that employment. Furthermore, the Complainant is required to allow an employer an opportunity to rectify any workplace issues before resigning.

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.”

Based on the evidence heard I note that the Respondent carried out a review following the quality control issue and based on the findings of Ms F, she ascertained that the deficiencies in the panel were attributable to the Complainant and another team member’s work. I note that Ms F engaged the Complainant and the other team member with a view to ascertaining if training/guidance could be provided in the spirit of a constructive approach. I accept the evidence provided by Ms F on this matter wherein she stated that she tried to engage both individuals with a view to assisting them with training and guidance to help them in their work going forward.   

The Respondent stated that following the Complainant’s conversation with Ms F with regard to the quality control issues, the Complainant informed his colleagues of his intention not to return to the job and subsequently departed the premises prior to the conclusion of his scheduled shift.  I note that the Complainant failed to return for work on 16 and 17 April.  I note that on 18 April the Complainant indicated that he would be willing to return to work if his pay issue was resolved.  I note that the Complainant subsequently stated he was taking annual leave for the two days he was absent in respect of 16 and 17 April. The Respondent at hearing stated that the Complainant was informed that due to his absence and previous overpayment (having used annual leave not yet accrued), his pay had been withheld pending clarification.  

The Respondent stated that the within matter was complicated by the Complainant’s indication on 18 April that he might retract his resignation. I note that following on from this Ms F arranged to go to the bank and withdraw cash for the Complainant; Ms F stated that due to a bank holiday coming up, a bank transfer would have been delayed. Ms F stated that upon her return to the office from the bank, she discovered that the Complainant had vacated the premises and had no intention of working that day.

While the Complainant has argued that given the sequence of events, he had no other option but to resign; I am cognisant that the Respondent company had comprehensive policies and procedures in place including grievance procedures. The purpose of grievance procedures is to resolve internal staff issues as well as to investigate those grievances. I note that the Complainant in the within matter did not utilise and exhaust the formal grievance procedures prior to taking the decision to resign his employment.

I note from the evidence heard that the MD of the company, Mr H on 3 May 2025 sought clarity from the Complainant on his formal position in respect of his resignation and any outstanding grievances. The Complainant was again informed of the grievance procedure outlined in the Employee Handbook. The Respondent stated that while the company sought to engage with the Complainant and made efforts to discuss the matter with him, the Complainant confirmed his resignation and declined to engage further.

Based on the entirety of the evidence heard, I am satisfied that the Complainant acted precipitously in resigning his employment without exhausting the internal process and procedures available to him.

Having carefully evaluated the evidence adduced in the within claim and the high bar set in terms of a constructive dismissal case, I find that the Complainant has not established that the Respondent’s actions were so unreasonable and intolerable that the Complainant had no other option but to resign. There is an onus on the Complainant to demonstrate that he acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve the grievance prior taking the decision to resign. In that regard, I find that the Complainant acted prematurely by resigning without allowing HR the opportunity to address the matter. In those circumstances, I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed by the Respondent.

Complaint under the Employment Equality Act

The Complainant alleged that he was treated unfairly with regard to being blamed for an issue which arose concerning a quality control matter relating to a switch gear board.  The Complainant states that he felt that this was most unfair as there was no proof that he was at fault and several members of staff had worked on that same board. In this regard, the Complainant is of the view that he was singled out and treated less favourably than other members of staff in relation to his conditions of employment on grounds of age. The Complainant states that as he was the youngest person in the group, he feels that this factor contributed to him getting the blame. The Respondent refuted the allegations of discrimination on grounds of age and stated that there is no basis to said claim.

Having reviewed this claim, I find that the Complainant has presented no evidence to ground a case of discrimination on grounds of age in respect of his conditions of employment and consequently I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of age contrary to the Employment Equality legislation.

Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act. Having carefully reviewed this complaint and upon review of all the written and oral evidence, I am satisfied that Complainant has not established a breach of the Payment of Wages Act in circumstances where all monies owing to the Complainant were paid to him by the company.  In those circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00071177-001 under the Unfair Dismissals Act

I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed by the Respondent. Consequently, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. 

CA-00071177-003 under the Employment Equality Acts

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against on grounds of age by the Respondent contrary to the Employment Equality Acts.

CA-00071177-004 under Payment of Wages Act

I find that the Complainant has not established a breach under the Payment of Wages Act and therefore this complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act, Unfair Dismissals Act, Employment Equality Acts