Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marie  Glynn

Muscular Dystrophy Ireland

Representatives

Shane MacSweeney MacSweeney & Company 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-00075583-001

20/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00075583-002

20/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00075583-003

20/09/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent, a charitable organisation providing services to individuals living with neuromuscular conditions, as a Project and Community Development Worker under successive fixed-term contracts running from October 2023 until October 2025. Her role was part-time, flexible in nature, and largely performed remotely, with duties assigned on a project-by-project basis rather than being rigidly defined.

She stated that, following her return from maternity leave in April 2025, her role was significantly altered, she was pressured to undertake duties incompatible with her agreed flexible arrangements, and she was left in prolonged uncertainty about her contract. She alleged that these factors created intolerable working conditions which effectively forced her to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal.

The Complainant was employed on a part-time basis, working 20 hours per week under a flexible arrangement. She described herself as a committed and effective employee who received no negative feedback about her performance before going on maternity leave in October 2024. Prior to that leave, she had been led to believe that a permanent contract might be forthcoming, but instead was asked to sign a further fixed-term contract with the understanding that permanency would be revisited upon her return. 

During her maternity leave, she remained engaged with her employer, assisting voluntarily with certain work-related matters, which reinforced her belief that she was a valued member of the organisation. When planning her return, she initially sought to take nine weeks’ parental leave but agreed to reduce this to three weeks at her employer’s request to support operational needs. It was also agreed that she would return to her 20-hour schedule, retain flexibility in how those hours were worked, and avoid travel initially due to breastfeeding and childcare responsibilities.

However, upon returning to work in April 2025, she experienced what she describes as a significant and unexpected change in her role. While she accepted responsibility for leading a counselling service and an additional community-based project, she was also pressed to undertake duties on an “Information and Advocacy” phone line. This role involved fixed rota shifts and reduced flexibility, which she considered incompatible with her agreed working conditions and personal circumstances. She repeatedly expressed her inability to take on this responsibility, emphasising that it had not formed part of her role prior to maternity leave and that she did not have capacity within her contracted hours. 

Despite her objections, she states that she was repeatedly scheduled onto the rota and was informed that refusal to participate meant she was not fulfilling her role. She felt increasingly pressured and, at times, “backed into a corner.”

Alongside the dispute over duties, there was ongoing uncertainty regarding her job security. In July 2025, she was informed that there might not be sufficient funding to renew her contract, which was contrary to earlier indications that permanency might be offered. Despite making repeated requests for clarity, she did not receive a definitive answer about her future employment. This uncertainty affected her ability to make decisions about taking parental leave and seeking alternative work, and she increasingly felt unsettled and unsupported.

Communication difficulties further exacerbated the situation. The complainant highlighted delays in responses, postponed meetings, and a lack of clear follow-up from management at critical points. Although an in-person meeting with senior management took place in July, and there was some discussion of resolving matters, she was subsequently asked to prepare a proposal without clear guidance, and later informed that this was no longer necessary. This contributed to confusion and a perception that the situation was not being handled consistently.

Ultimately, after months of ongoing pressure, uncertainty, and what she perceived as a fundamental alteration of her role and conditions, she resigned from her position in August 2025. She states that this decision was not voluntary in any meaningful sense, but rather the result of feeling that she had no reasonable alternative. Notably, shortly after submitting her resignation, she was informed that a contract could be offered, although this came too late to alter her decision.

She also stated that she was not paid maternity pay in her case compared unlike a colleague who was employed on a permanent contract.

In relation to the constructive dismissal claim, the Respondent’s position was that the Complainant resigned of her own volition and was not subjected to conduct that would justify resignation. They stated that the Complainant was engaged under a flexible, casual fixed-term arrangement in which duties were not rigidly defined and could be varied in line with organisational requirements. The Respondent also asserted that the allocation of duties connected to the Supportline fell within the scope of her role and was consistent with its strategic objectives.

While accepting that the Complainant objected to participating in the Supportline rota, the Respondent stated that they did not compel her to undertake those duties. Instead, they sought to address her concerns through ongoing engagement, including a meeting involving senior management. They emphasised that, by July 2025, the issue had been effectively set aside in respect of the Complainant and no longer applied to her for the remainder of her employment.

The Respondent further stated that the Complainant’s concern regarding uncertainty about the renewal of her fixed-term contract cannot ground a claim for constructive dismissal. They stated that the law explicitly permits the expiry of fixed-term contracts without renewal and that any uncertainty regarding renewal is inherent in such arrangements.

They also highlighted that the Complainant did not avail of their grievance procedure before resigning, which they stated is a critical step in establishing a constructive dismissal claim. In addition, the Respondent stated that the Complainant moved directly into alternative employment immediately after leaving, which it was asserted demonstrates that her resignation was motivated by a desire to take up another role rather than by intolerable working conditions. 

Regarding the complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Respondent stated that there was no less favourable treatment by reason of fixed-term status. They stated that the comparator identified was a permanent employee from the outset and therefore not directly comparable in the manner suggested. As to maternity pay, the Respondent explained that, at the time the Complainant commenced maternity leave, all employees were limited to statutory benefits only, and that an enhanced maternity pay policy was introduced only in March 2025. They stated that any difference in treatment arose from the timing of that policy change rather than from the Complainant’s contractual status.

CA-00075583-001:

The Law

Section 1 of the Act defines what is commonly termed ‘constructive dismissal’ as follows: -

“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”

Findings

During the Complainant’s period of maternity leave, the Respondent introduced a centralised Information and Advocacy Supportline, which was staffed on a rota basis by members of the frontline team. Upon her return to work, the Complainant was requested to participate in this rota. She expressed strong reservations about doing so and declined to engage with that aspect of the role. This issue became a point of ongoing discussion between the parties.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that while the Respondent wished the Complainant to participate in the Supportline, they did not impose this requirement unilaterally or enforce it through disciplinary means. On the contrary, the Respondent engaged with the Complainant over a period of time in an effort to address her concerns and, ultimately, in mid-July 2025, the requirement was effectively set aside insofar as she was concerned for the remainder of her contract.

I acknowledge, however, that prior to this resolution, the issue was the subject of sustained engagement and disagreement over a period of time, during which the Complainant experienced the request as pressure and expressed that she felt “backed into a corner”. I have carefully considered whether that period, viewed in its full context, could amount to conduct rendering the workplace intolerable. While the exchanges were clearly a source of strain for the Complainant, I am satisfied that they remained within the realm of a genuine dispute regarding work allocation, and were accompanied by ongoing attempts by the Respondent to reach an accommodation rather than to compel compliance.

The Complainant resigned her position on 12 August 2025, approximately two months before the expiry of her fixed-term contract. The evidence demonstrates that, at the time of her resignation, the Supportline issue was no longer active and was not impacting upon her day-to-day work. It is also clear from the contemporaneous correspondence that her resignation occurred in circumstances where she had secured alternative employment, which she commenced immediately upon leaving the Respondent’s employment.

In considering if the Complainant was constructively dismissed, I have applied the well-established legal tests, namely whether there was a fundamental breach of contract by the employer, or whether the employer’s conduct was such that it was reasonable for the employee to resign.

On the facts presented, I find no evidence of conduct by the Respondent amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract. The duties which the Respondent sought to assign to the Complainant were within the general scope of her role. Importantly, the Respondent did not insist upon the performance of the disputed duties when the Complainant objected; rather, it withdrew the requirement and deferred the issue. In those circumstances, there was no unilateral imposition of duties that could be said to undermine the contract of employment.

In reaching this conclusion, I have also had regard to the Complainant’s return from maternity leave and the particular sensitivities arising in that context, including her need for flexibility and her personal circumstances. While I accept that the introduction of new duties and uncertainty around role expectations may have been experienced as significant and unsettling, I am not satisfied that the changes, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental alteration of the contract of employment or to a breach of mutual trust and confidence.

Turning to the reasonableness test, I am similarly not satisfied that the Respondent conducted itself in a manner which would render resignation a reasonable response. The principal difficulty identified by the Complainant had been resolved in practical terms prior to her resignation. Her concern then shifted to uncertainty regarding whether her fixed-term contract would be renewed. However, I accept the Respondent’s position that, within a fixed-term contractual arrangement, there is no guarantee of renewal and that such uncertainty does not, without more, amount to unreasonable conduct. 

That said, I accept that the delay in providing clarity regarding renewal was a source of genuine anxiety for the Complainant and formed part of the overall context in which she made her decision. I have therefore considered whether that uncertainty, combined with the earlier dispute regarding duties and the perceived breakdown in communication, could cumulatively render resignation reasonable. Having done so, I am not satisfied that the Respondent’s conduct, viewed in the round, came anywhere near the high threshold required to justify resignation. The evidence indicates ongoing engagement by the Respondent, including meetings and correspondence, and does not demonstrate a withdrawal from the employment relationship or an intention to abandon it.

It is also significant that the Respondent indicated, shortly after her resignation, that a renewal would in fact be offered, although the Complainant elected to proceed with her resignation nonetheless. 

I also note that the Complainant did not invoke the Respondent’s grievance procedure at any stage prior to her resignation. While not determinative in itself, the failure to utilise available internal mechanisms to address concerns is an important factor in assessing the reasonableness of a decision to resign.

I note the Complainant’s explanation that she considered a grievance procedure to be of limited utility in circumstances where senior management were directly involved. However, the absence of any formal escalation nonetheless reduces the extent to which it can be said that the Respondent was given a full and fair opportunity to resolve the matters now relied upon.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed.

CA-00075583-002:

In relation to the complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Complainant stated that she was treated less favourably than a comparable employee in respect of maternity-related pay. It was not disputed in evidence however that, at the time the Complainant commenced maternity leave in October 2024, the Respondent’s policy was that employees were entitled only to statutory maternity benefit. A revised policy providing for top-up maternity pay was introduced in March 2025 and applied thereafter to all employees, including fixed-term employees

The comparator identified by the Complainant benefited from that revised policy because her maternity leave commenced after its introduction. The difference in treatment therefore arose from the timing of the policy change rather than from any distinction based on fixed-term status. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant was not treated less favourably by reason of her status as a fixed-term employee, and the complaint under the 2003 Act is not well founded.

CA-00075583-001:

I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed for the reasons set out above.

CA-00075583-002:

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above,

CA-00075583-003: This complaint was withdrawn.