Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fayth Byrne

Foot Locker

Representatives

Represented herself

Dylan Nolan, IBEC

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-00071446-001

22/05/2025

In October 2023, the complainant commenced working with the respondent as a sales assistant in their O’Connell Street store.  She generally worked 20 hours per weeks, although she said that occasionally, she worked 30 or 40 hours.  Towards the end of 2024, she reduced her working week to 12 hours.  When her employment ended on May 23rd 2025, she was earning €14.00 per hour.   

On April 22nd 2025, the complainant was asked to attend a meeting with the assistant manager in O’Connell Street.  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss her absences, lateness and her use of the store discount card.  A copy of a note of the meeting was provided at the hearing.  This shows that the complainant signed each of the four handwritten pages.  Page 4 has a note of the complainant saying, “I am happy to give my one week’s notice to leave the company and receive my holiday pay as well.”

The next day, the complainant sent an email to the respondent in which she claimed that she had been dismissed at the meeting with the assistant manager because she was “mentally unstable.”

The manager of the respondent’s store in Henry Street, Ms Rachel Culleton, was assigned to investigate the complainant’s grievance.  Ms Culleton interviewed two of the complainant’s colleagues from O’Connell Street.  Both employees confirmed that the complainant told them that she resigned at the meeting on April 22nd because she thought she was going to be dismissed.  A note of Ms Culleton’s meeting with the assistant manager indicates that, at the meeting, the complainant resigned because the assistant manager told her that she intended to recommend that an investigation be conducted into her conduct.

Ms Culleton had a phone call with the complainant on April 30th 2025 regarding a return to work in O’Connell Street or to a different store.  The notes of the call show that the complainant told Ms Culleton that she had an appointment with her solicitor later that day and that she would decide afterwards if she wanted to return to work.

On May 12th, Ms Culleton issued a response to the complainant’s grievance, concluding that her complaint was not upheld; however, Ms Culleton decided that the assistant manager would be given more training and she recommended mediation to support improved communications between the complainant and the store manager.

The complainant appealed against the outcome of the grievance process and on May 16th, the HR generalist, Mr Robert Street, who attended the hearing of this matter, wrote to explain the deficits in her appeal request.  The complainant had failed to provide any new evidence, or to show that the investigator was biased, or that the company hadn’t followed the grievance procedure.  Mr Street asked the complainant to provide further evidence by May 19th to substantiate her appeal and to confirm that she would attend for mediation with the store manager in O’Connell Street.

The complainant remained absent from work due to illness, and, on May 23rd, she wrote to the store manager to confirm her decision to resign.  In her email in which she outlined the reason for her resignation, the complainant said the reason was because of the “continued distress and mishandling of my grievance and the overall working environment.”  She said that she felt that it was no longer in the interest of her mental wellbeing to remain with the company.

At the commencement of the hearing, I asked the complainant to outline what happened that resulted in her submitting this complaint to the WRC.  She said that, on April 22nd, the store manager told her that the assistant manager wanted to speak to her in the office.  She said that she had been absent from work for the two previous weeks due to her mental health.  She said that the assistant manager told her that there would have to be an investigation into all the days she had missed and that her contract might be terminated.  She said that she got upset and said that she would like to resign.  She said that she rang her grandmother who told her to come home.

The complainant said that she took off her uniform and went down to the shop floor where she told her colleagues that she had “quit.”  She said that she sent an email to the HR department and asked for “a resignation letter.”  At the hearing, the complainant said that she doesn’t know what she meant by this.  She received a reply from Mr Street who told her that she wasn’t dismissed.

The complainant said that, on April 23rd, she made a formal complaint about the conduct of the assistant manager.  Ms Culleton, who was appointed to investigate the matter asked the complainant if she would like to move to a different store.  The complainant said however, that she loved her job in O’Connell Street and she had good friends there and that she would go back to that shop.

A few days after she met Ms Culleton, the complainant said that she went to the shop to get her uniform.  She wasn’t rostered for work that day, but she wanted to bring her uniform home to get ready to come back to work.  She said that the store manager wouldn’t speak to her.  She made some comments about a conversation between a shift manager and the store manager; however, as neither person was at the hearing to give evidence, I do not intend to consider the remarks that the complainant alleges were made.

Arising from this, the complainant said that she decided that she didn’t want to work in Foot Locker anymore.  She said that she was being told that she wasn’t dismissed, but she had no income and, on May 23rd, she sent the manager an email confirming her resignation.

The respondent’s position is that the complainant was not dismissed, but that she resigned initially at the meeting with the assistant manager on April 22nd 2025 and then in writing on May 23rd.

At section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, “dismissal” is defined as the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract or, the termination by the employee of their contract.  At section 22.13 of “Redmond on Dismissal Law,” by Dr Desmond Ryan, (© Bloomsbury 2017), Dr Ryan refers to the general understanding of dismissal:

“In general a person is dismissed when the employer informs him clearly and unequivocally that the contract is at an end or if the circumstances leave no doubt dismissal was intended or that it may be reasonably inferred.”

The dismissal of the complainant is in doubt; she claims that she was dismissed at the meeting on April 22nd, when the assistant manager in the store where she worked called her to meeting to discuss her absence and her conduct.  From the evidence of the complainant, it is apparent that she decided at this meeting that it was in her best interest to resign, rather than be subjected to an investigation into her absences and her misuse of the store discount policy.

When she submitted a complaint about the store manager, the investigating manager asked the complainant to consider moving to a different store.  This is a clear indication that the complainant was not dismissed, but that the respondent wanted her to continue in employment.  I note also that, when she decided to return to work in O’Connell Street, the investigating manager suggested training for the assistant manager and mediation between the complainant and the manager in that store.  All of this points to a decision on the part of the respondent to maintain the complainant in their employment.

Taking guidance from the premise that a person is dismissed when the circumstancesleave no doubt about the employer’s intention, it is my view that the respondent did not intend to dismiss the complainant.  I am satisfied not only that the respondent did not intend to dismiss the complainant, but that she was not in fact dismissed.  This was confirmed to her in writing on May 12th 2025 when the investigating manager wrote to her and concluded that, at the meeting at which she resigned, the words used by the assistant manager “made you feel pressurised into making a decision on the spot.”  The manager went on, “You were not dismissed at any point.”

I am satisfied that the complainant was not dismissed from her employment with the respondent, but that, on April 22nd 2025, when she was confronted by the assistant manager about her conduct, she decided that she didn’t want to face the prospect of a disciplinary investigation. 

For the reasons I have set out above, I am satisfied that the complainant was not dismissed and I decide therefore, that her complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

Dismissal in doubt