Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karen  O'Sullivan

Radisson Blu Hotel Little Island

Representatives

Self-represented

Harry McCullagh Harry McCullagh Solicitors

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-00075677-001

23/09/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant undertook to give her evidence under affirmation. Cross examination was facilitated.  Although a witness for the respondent undertook to give evidence under affirmation at the outset, the respondent declined to draw upon witness evidence, noting that their witness was not in situ at the time of the complaint and would have no relevant evidence to adduce.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that she resigned from her employment on 30 July 2025, following receipt of a letter from the respondent’s former Head of Human Resources stating that he wouldn’t fraudulently complete a form for applying for a social welfare payment.

The complainant stated that the respondent had not offered her increased hours or a full-time contract at any stage, directly contradicting the assertion of the former head of Human Resources.  She stated that did not explore the grievance procedure, noting that perhaps, in hindsight, she should have done so.  She noted that she had not been rostered for hours during the July.

She submitted her resignation citing repeated failure by the respondent to pay outstanding monies owed to her. She stated that she was left with no option as she was only in receipt of Social Welfare allowances and could not afford the time it would take to process a grievance.

The complainant noted that she applied to take a set-up your own business course and confirmed that she did not seek paying work at that stage while she undertook voluntary work to try to build up her profile.

Under cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she was aware of the grievance procedure but did not utilise it.

The respondent submitted that the complainant resigned from her employment without seeking recourse to the grievance procedure that it operated.  It was submitted that this is fatal to her case as outlined in Griffin v Sage (ADJ-00034467) wherein the case of Murray v Rockavill Shellfish Ltd was cited:

 “It has been well established that a question of constructive dismissal must be considered under two headings, Entitlement and Reasonableness. An employee must act reasonably in terminating his contract of employment. Resignation must not be the first option taken by the employee and all other reasonable options including following the grievance procedure must be explored. An employee must pursue his grievance through the procedure laid down before taking the drastic step of resigning”.

The respondent confirmed that the complainant was earning about €500 per month between wages for one day per week, and commission.

The complainant provided a copy of a letter written by the former Human Resources Manager wherein inferred that the complainant was fraudulently claiming that there were no full-time hours available with the respondent.  The letter’s tone is threatening, the wording appears to be clumsy at best and overall, it has no sense of humanity to it, given that it is a letter from Human Resources.

However, the respondent operates a grievance procedure and the complainant stated that although she was aware of the procedure, she had no time to avail of it.

The respondent contended that the first recourse of an employee should be to an internal mechanism to resolve a grievance or to raise a complaint, providing precedent in support of its contention.  I agree with the Adjudication Officer in Griffin v Sage that there must be good reason put forward by an employee for not relying upon an existing grievance procedure before resigning.

In the circumstances, the complainant has not provided what I consider to be a valid reason for not availing of the grievance procedure noting that she had no time to avail of the grievance procedure.  She chose instead to go directly for resignation.

Having regard to all of the circumstances I am not satisfied that the complainant has established that there was no option open to her other than resignation. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not dismissed constructively or otherwise.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed having regard to all of the circumstances outlined.

constructive Unfair Dismissal – Grievance procedure in place – no valid reason for not using grievance procedure – unfair dismissal not established.