Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker

An Employer

Representatives

  Self

 Self

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial relations Act 1969 ( as amended)

CA 00072507 -001

17/06/2025

The worker alleges that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. The respondent alleges that the worker resigned from his position.

The worker started working for the respondent following an on-line application process. He liked it there at first but then things started to annoy him. The first thing was the unlawful deduction of wages. He did raise that with the company accountant. She agreed with worker. Then there was an issue in relation to his tax credits that concerned him. On the morning of 9th June he went to find the owner and spoke to him. The owner told him that he was “wrecking the accountants head”. The worker said that he was handing in his notice but that he would work the two weeks. The owner basically told him to get lost. He was asked to pack up his stuff and get out. He gave him until the next morning to get all of his belongings out of the staff accommodation. The worker then got the bus home, collected his car, drove back to the accommodation and packed up his belongings.  

He was paid his holiday pay, tips but he was not paid his pay in lieu. The worker has an additional claim that is listed for hearing in September pursuant to the Industrial relations Act, Minimum Notice Act, Organisation of Working time Act and Payment of Wages Act.

The worker came to the owner on 9th June and stated that he was resigning his position. The owner told him that because he had only been there a few weeks so he didn’t have to work a notice period and that he could leave. He gave him until the next morning to remove his belongings from the staff accommodation.

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

Having considered the evidence of both parties, I am satisfied that the worker resigned his employment on 9 June. The worker's own evidence was that he informed the owner that he was "handing in his notice" and intended to work a two-week notice period. The respondent's evidence was that the worker resigned and was informed that, given his short period of service, he was not required to work out any notice and could leave immediately.

The fact that the respondent chose to waive the requirement for the worker to work his proposed notice period does not alter the fundamental nature of the termination. The employment relationship came to an end because of the worker's decision to resign. The respondent's decision to accept the resignation with immediate effect did not convert the resignation into a dismissal.

Accordingly, I find that the worker was not dismissed by the respondent. As there was no dismissal, the within complaint cannot succeed.

I note that the worker has also brought claims under the Industrial Relations Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Payment of Wages Act. Those matters raise separate statutory issues and are listed for hearing in September, and will be determined on their own merits at that time. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to make any findings in relation to those complaints in this recommendation.

Unfair Dismissal, resignation, notice period.