Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Kitchen Porter

A Restaurant

Representatives

Represented Herself

Represented by Management

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-00004101-001

10/04/2025

On March 29th 2024, the worker commenced employment as a kitchen porter in the employer’s restaurant.  She worked between 22 and 24 hours per week, and her hourly rate was €13.50.  She resigned on February 5th 2025.  She claims that she had to leave her job because of how she was treated by her employer.  Her complaint therefore, is that she was constructively dismissed.  Because she hasn’t got 12 months of service to bring her within the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the worker submitted her complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  She claims that her dismissal was unfair and she is seeking a recommendation that her employer should pay her compensation.

The worker had a dispute with her employer which has been considered separately as a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  In January 2025, while this dispute was going on, the worker said that the environment at work became hostile.  She said that she was disciplined when she raised an objection to her employer’s approach to breaks during the working day.

On January 11th, the employer wrote to the worker and asked her to attend a disciplinary meeting on January 14th in a neutral venue.  The letter included in the documents submitted for the hearing show that the employer intended to discuss four incidents of insubordination that allegedly occurred on January 4th, 7th and 8th.

The meeting was postponed because the worker wanted her solicitor to attend with her.  On January 15th, the worker said that she became short of breath and dizzy and she had to go to hospital.  When she returned to work, the disciplinary meeting was arranged for January 29th.  Her solicitor wasn’t available that day, but despite this, the meeting went ahead.  The worker said that she has a recording of the meeting.  She said that her employer never showed her any law that stated that she wasn’t entitled to record the meeting.

At the hearing, the worker said that the way her conduct was described led to her being dismissed.  She said that she thought that she would be dismissed.  She said that she gave her employer one month’s notice of her decision to resign and she confirmed this later by email.  On February 5th, she said that her employer wrote to her and said that she wasn’t required to work more than one week’s notice and she was paid in lieu of working that week.

Concluding her statement at the hearing, the worker said that, at the disciplinary meeting, she was told that her conduct was “insubordination.”  She said that this is a misrepresentation of how she behaved.  She said that she felt under stress and that people were hostile to her.  She said that her employer didn’t allow her to defend herself.

I asked the employer to respond to the worker’s claim that she had to leave her job because of how she was treated at work.  He said that, on Saturday, January 4th 2025, he instructed the worker not to use bleach to clean cups.  He said that, in the presence of other employees, the worker was disrespectful and aggressive.  He said that she didn’t listen to his reasons why bleach was not to be used.  That evening, before she left for the day, the employer said that the worker came to his office and told him that his instructions made no sense and were illogical.  He said that she questioned if he knew what he was doing.

The following Tuesday, January 7th, the employer said that he was in his office and the worker told him that she felt disrespected the previous Saturday.  She told him that he had anger management issues and, in what he described as “a forceful tone,” she told him that he was never to speak to her in that manner again. 

On the same day, the worker raised the issue of how breaks were rostered.  When the employer responded to her query, he said that she told him that, as someone who has been running a business for nine years, he should know what he was doing.  The employer said that he told the worker that he would look into her query about the breaks.

The following day, in the presence of customers, the employer said that the worker told him that she needed to speak to him.  She wanted to show him the advice she got from the Citizens Information Centre about breaks at work.  In a loud and aggressive tone, the worker told her employer that she was giving him a final written warning.  When he asked her to calm down, the employer said that she responded that she didn’t want to calm down.

The employer said that he asked the worker to go home.  Having left the restaurant, he said that she returned and demanded a letter confirming that she would be paid her wages for the day.

The employer said that he phoned the employment rights section of the WRC and he established that his approach to rest breaks during the day was correct. 

The employer wrote to the worker and asked her to attend a disciplinary meeting on January 14th.  She wanted to attend with her solicitor and the meeting was postponed for a day to facilitate this.  The worker was sick when the meeting for January 15th was scheduled and the employer said that he wanted to wait until she was back at work before scheduling another meeting.  He said that he waited for two weeks until the worker had returned and the meeting was then scheduled for January 29th.  The worker insisted on recording the meeting.  The employer said that the worker told him that she didn’t need his consent to record it.

The employer said that, before the meeting concluded, the worker said that she would take a case against him if she was dismissed.  She then gave him one month’s notice.

When she returned to the kitchen, the staff reported that the worker made gunshot gestures and told that she has “won a million.”  The head chef reported to the employer that the worker had informed him that she wouldn’t be doing any deep cleaning during her notice.  She also said that she wouldn’t be in the following day until after 12.00.

The employer said that he thought he had no option but to pay the worker in lieu of her notice and she finished up on February 5th.  This complaint was submitted to the WRC on April 10th 2025 and, on April 14th, the employer said that the worker contacted him and offered to withdraw her complaint in return for a significant sum in compensation.

Under a separate heading, I have examined the worker’s claim that she wasn’t allowed to take breaks in accordance with s.12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  While the employer’s interpretation of s.12 was incorrect, the issue could have been resolved without the worker resorting to threats and abuse.

It is my view that the worker left her job because her conduct resulted in a complete breakdown in her relationship with her employer.  She was not dismissed, and, on the day she resigned, she had not been issued with any sanction. 

While the standard tests for constructive dismissal do not apply to a dispute being investigated under the Industrial Relations Act, the worker cannot point to a breach of her contract, or any conduct on the part of her employer that was so unreasonable that she had to resign.  I find therefore, that there is no substance to her claim that she was constructively dismissed.

I recommend that the employer does not pay compensation to the worker.

Constructive dismissal, dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969