Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Associate

Software Provider

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Barry Reynolds, Littler Ireland

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003787

09/02/2025

On 9th February 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his Employer sought to discipline him without due process and by relying on information that was collected in breach of the relevant data protection guidelines.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 29th August 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submission in advance of the hearing. While the Employer issued a submission in advance of the hearing, they did not attend the hearing itself.

By submission, the Worker stated that the Employer recorded and collected a portion of a call with a colleague that was not work related and that was only intended for the other party to the conversation. Thereafter, the Employer sought to commence a disciplinary procedure against him using this recording as evidence. The Worker stated the collection of such data was clearly in breach of the Employer’s responsibilities under the relevant data protection acts. The Worker further submitted that the Employer acted oppressively in commencing this investigation, particularly in the immediate removal of his access from remote platforms. On foot of the Employer’s oppressive actions in this regard, the Worker elected to resign his employment.

By submission, the Worker addressed his decision not to engage with the internal procedures prior to issuing this resignation. In this regard, he submitted that he previously raised a grievance that was not handled properly by the Employer. He submitted that during this previous grievance process, his concerns were not addressed in any material fashion, and he formed the view that the Employer had no interest in seeking to resolve these issues. He further submitted that the much of the adverse behaviour complained of continued to the date of the issue that led to his resignation. Finally, the Worker submitted that the suffered medical issues following the failure of the Employer to protect him in the course of his duties, and that he could not risk further damage in this regard.

In summary, the Worker submitted that the Employer had constructively dismissed him by their oppressive behaviour. He submitted that he raised numerous issues in the course of his employment, but the same were not properly investigated by the Employer. In these circumstances, the Worker submitted that he had no confidence in the Employer’s ability or willingness to investigate grievances, and submitted that the was entitled to resign without engaging the in the procedures.

By submission, the Employer stated that no valid trade dispute existed in relation to the current dispute. In this regard, they submitted that the Worker did not engage with the relevant internal procedures prior to resigning his employment.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker submitted that the Employer engaged in an oppressive and unlawful disciplinary procedure. Given the fundamentally flawed nature of the same, he submitted that he was entitled to resign his employment and consider himself to be constructively dismissed, albeit he accepted that he would not have jurisdiction under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. By response, the Employer stated that the Worker did not engage with their internal procedures prior to resigning and that no recommendation should issue in his favour. On this point, the Worker accepted that he did not engage with the procedures prior to resigning but submitted that he did so previously. He submitted that that juncture, the Employer evidenced no intention of properly investigating the complaints as raised.

In the matter of Brothers of Charity -v- A Worker LCR22589, the Labour Court held that,

“The Labour Court is, in the Industrial Relations arena the Court of last resort. In the case to hand the Worker chose not to exhaust the internal procedures prior to referring the case to the WRC and then the Court. In normal circumstances the Court would recommend that the Worker return to the internal grievance procedure to process her complaint. However, as the Worker has now resigned her position there is no merit in doing that.”

In essence, the Worker has submitted that I should depart from this well-established principle on the basis that he previously engaged with the Employer’s procedures and was subject unfavourable outcome and process. While this may well be the case, and in this regard, it is noted that the Employer did not substantively dispute this allegation, the fact remains that the Employer and the Worker agreed a set of procedures regarding the investigation of disciplinary or grievance issues.  It is also the case that the same were not utilised or engaged with prior to the referral of the present dispute. While the Worker expressed misgiving about the Employer’s apparent willingness or ability to investigate grievances, this position serves to essentially prejudge the outcome of the same without any form of engagement regarding the particular issue that led to his resignation.

Having regard to the foregoing, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to the dispute.  

Last Resort, Grievance Procedure, Constructive Dismissal