Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Maintenance and Turnover Manager

A Property Rental Agency

Representatives

Ms. M. P. Guinness BL instructed by  Ledwith Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00075406-001

14/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00076622-001

21/10/2025

By complaint form dated 14 September 2025, the Complainant submitted a claim of constructive dismissal under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. By a further complaint form dated 21 October 2025, he submitted complaints under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The complainant tendered his resignation on 8 September 2025 and submitted his Unfair Dismissal claim on 14 September 2025.  The additional complaints were subsequently lodged on 21 October 2025.

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent as a Property Maintenance Coordinator from January 2023 until he resigned on 8 September 2025.

The complainant further submits that, after being offered a new role in December 2023, he was not issued with a new contract and did not sign or receive a new role document. He states that, on 18 December 2023, he was promoted to the role of General Maintenance and Turnover Manager but was not given a new contract or written statement of duties. He states that more than a year later, after carrying out a range of additional duties, he received an email from the new Scheduling Administrator outlining what his role would involve.

The complainant submits that  he had requested clarification of his role because he had been informally carrying out duties including block management and block-cleaning management, delivering cleaning products, scheduling, preparing inspection reports, carrying out maintenance, contacting residents to arrange works, managing the “Services” email account, and liaising with the leasing team and other staff members.

The complainant submits that he was later sent a written list of duties, but when he asked for the original version, he received no response. He states that the list contained no date, time, or signatures and that he had not seen it before the sudden change to his role.

The complainant submits that he felt he had no option but to resign because he was required, in order to fulfil his role, to mark property inspections as green and suitable for rental, including health and safety, cleanliness, painting, and maintenance checks. He states that he had not received training or certification to carry out those checks.

The respondent submits that the Complainant was employed as a General Property Maintenance coordinator and his employment commenced on 24 January 2023.

The contract provided that while the principal duties are outlined in the schedule, the duties can be added to or amended by the Company from time to time.

The respondent submits that the Complainants duties included providing property maintenance and were wide ranging and included overseeing and performing general repairs and painting, both internally and externally, attending to maintenance requests, liaising with third parties, and identifying and reporting areas with immediate maintenance needs.

In addition to a contract of Employment the Complainant was provided with an Employee Handbook when it was introduced in March 2023 and it was also available on a HR platform that could be accessed by all employees.

The respondent submits that the Complainant had an appraisal on 13 September 2023, with positive input from both sides and during which he confirmed he would hopefully be running a bigger team in the future.

The respondent submits that the complainant by letter dated 18 December 2023, was informed of a performance bonus and remuneration review and in addition, he was informed that due to his exceptional performance he was being offered a promotion to "General Maintenance and Turnover Manager” the only additional duty was a final property inspection and he had indicated that he wanted additional responsibilities.

The respondent submits that the complainant had a further positive review in April 2025 during which he stated that other staff members did not share his level of enthusiasm.

The respondent submits that the Complainant at no point during his review, or at any time in the five months between his April 2025 review and his September 2025 resignation, did the Complainant raise any concerns or objections to his duties, workload, the scope of his promotion or any alleged change to his responsibilities.

The complainant tendered his resignation on 8 September 2025 giving one months notice.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00075406-001

14/09/2025

Section 1(b) of the Act defines a constructive dismissal as: -

“(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”.

Section 6(1) of the Act states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Significant legal precedent exists which establishes that, for a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, it has to satisfy either one or a combination of both of the following “tests.”

There are two sets of circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal.  The law is well settled here, and these tests are known as the “contract” test and the “reasonableness” test.  The first test, that of breach of contract, requires that the contract of employment has to have been breached to such a degree that the employee is left with no option but to resign.  It is now generally understood that an employee must also act reasonably in terminating their employment and that resignation must not be the first option taken by the employee. 

The reasonableness test requires that the employee must satisfactorily demonstrate that the employer behaved or acted in a manner, which was so unreasonable as to make it impossible for the employee to continue in the employment.  The employee must show that his behaviour/action in resigning was reasonable in all the circumstances. 

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.”

In the English case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332 Denning J stated:

“If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one of more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance.”

The complainant in this case submits that he was left with no option but to resign his employment after his role was expanded to include additional tasks including a requirement that he complete property inspections and mark same as green and suitable for rental, which indicated that the properties has  met a certain standard in respect of  cleanliness, painting, and maintenance checks.    The complainant stated that he was instructed to do this even in circumstances where items were outstanding and that he himself was expected to carry out cleaning tasks if cleaners had not shown up or a job was not done in time to let the property.   The complainant also submits that he had not received training or certification to carry out these checks.

The complainant advised the hearing of an incident where he had sent photos of a property where cleaning had not been completed and that he was instructed to mark it as green and ready to let as people were moving in that day.  He stated that he was expected to carry out the cleaning himself in such circumstances and that he had not been trained to do so.

Witness for the respondent and company director, Mr. R  advised the hearing that there were occasions where the cleaning had fallen behind due to staff absences or staffing issues and he stated that the complainant had been asked to do his best to get the place ready Mr. R added that he himself had to pitch in and help out with cleaning and painting on such occasions.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant was not instructed to carry out the cleaning as would be done by the cleaning team but was asked to do his best to get the place up to scratch if a letting was imminent.    The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had been particularly good at his job and that he had during his tenure contributed to great improvements in terms of turnaround times for properties.  The respondent stated that the complainant had achieved efficiencies in coordinating the painting of properties in a brief time and had even secured painters to work at weekends to ensure faster turnaround times.  The respondent stated that the complainant had a very positive review in September 2023 during which he had indicated a desire to run a larger team.

The respondent state that shortly after this in December 2023 the complainant had been given a bonus in appreciation of his contribution and a promotion to ‘General Maintenance and Turnover Manager’ which gave him the added responsibility of inspecting properties before letting.

The complainant advised the hearing that the respondent had failed to provide him with an updated contract after he had been promoted following which his role had expanded considerably.  The respondent at the hearing conceded that the complainant had not been provided with a new contract after his promotion but stated that he was advised of the increase in salary in writing and also that the only additional task which the new role entailed was the added responsibility of inspecting properties before letting.

The complainant advised the hearing that he now had responsibility for ensuring that properties complied with cleanliness standards and that there were often difficulties with properties not being cleaned due to staff absences  The complainant stated that in such instances he was expected to clean the property himself to bring it up to standard.  The complainant stated that he was often told to stop highlighting issues and to give properties the green light to go ahead for rental even where the standard had not been met.  The respondent in reply to this claim stated that here had been issues with cleaning staff and that sometimes minor issue would have to be dealt with by the complainant or even by the director himself in order to get a property ready for a quick turnaround.  The respondent stated that the complaint was only expected to do his best in those circumstances.

The complainant stated that he had no choice but to resign.   The contract and reasonableness tests were outlined to the complainant at the hearing.

The complainant in his evidence did not provide any details or evidence of any contractual breach going to the heart of the contract.

The complainant advised the hearing that he had not raised any issues formally or in writing but stated that he had often complained about staff not doing their jobs such as cleaning staff.   The respondent agreed that the complainant in his April 2025 review had stated that the general attitude of other staff members was not the same as his and that they did not work showing the same "levels of enthusiasm".    The respondent stated that there had previously been staffing issues with cleaners not showing up but stated that this had become less of an issue once they had introduced a system whereby the block cleaners were now being used where based on site, so were on hands to attend to cleaning issues.   

The respondent advised the hearing that at no point during his review, or at any time in the five months between his April 2025 review and his September 2025 resignation, did the Complainant raise any concerns or objections to his duties, workload, the scope of his promotion or any alleged change to his responsibilities.

The complainant when questioned conceded that he had not raised any issues formally or in writing and had not invoked any of the respondent policies in respect of making a complaint or lodging a grievance. 

The complainant in his evidence to the hearing stated that he had gone on holidays for two weeks at the end of August and that things had become so unbearable after his return that he felt he had no choice but to resign.   The complainant confirmed that he had returned to work on the 3rd of September and had resigned on the 8th of September.

The complainant in his evidence stated that he had provided one month’s notice as he did not want to leave the respondent short-handed.   It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that an offer to work a further month in the same job is not reflective of an employee who feels he has no option but to resign his employment.

In addition, the respondent advised the hearing that the complainant appeared onsite a month after his employment ceased, working as a contractor on the respondent site but employed by another company.

The complainant stated that he had in his final email submitting  his resignation outlined a number of issues to the respondent which he cited as his reasons for resigning.  The complainant conceded that he had not raised same prior to submitting his resignation.

In considering his matter I have also examined communications between the complainant and the respondent and there seemed to be pleasant and friendly communication between both sides.  I note that there were times when the complainant was absent due to personal matters and due to illness and that all communications in this regard were considerate and supportive.

It is hard to see how the relationship declined so much that the complainant felt he had no option but to resign.   This is even more difficult to fathom in circumstances where the complainant had never raised any formal complaint or grievance and where any performance reviews undertaken were positive.

In considering this matter I note that no evidence has been presented that indicates that the respondent attempted to repudiate a term of the complainant’s contract.   I am also mindful of the decision in Conway v Ulster Bank, which sets out that the notion of reasonableness goes both ways and an employee must give their employer an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have.   The complainant in the present case has conceded that he did not lodge any formal or written  complaint or grievance.

Accordingly, having considered the totality of the evidence adduced and the prevailing law and precedent, I am satisfied that the complainant in this case was not constructively dismissed, and I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I am satisfied that the complainant in this case was not constructively dismissed and accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00076622-001

21/10/2025

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states:

5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect . . .  ” (emphasis added).

The complainant advised the hearing that the respondent had failed to provide him with an updated contract after he had been promoted in December 2023 and following which his role had expanded considerably.   The complainant stated that he was only given a list of duties two years after he was already doing the role.

The respondent at the hearing conceded that the complainant had not been provided with a new contract after his promotion but stated that he was advised of the increase in salary in writing following his promotion in December 2023.  The respondent stated that the only additional task which the new role entailed was the added responsibility of inspecting properties before letting.

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the complainant was not notified in writing of a change in his contract in accordance with the prevailing law.  Accordingly, I declare this claim to be well founded. 

 I declare this claim to be well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €1,000 in this regard.