Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Interior Designer

A Property Advisory Firm

Representatives

In person

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

CA-00073702

23/07/2025

The worker was employed as an Interior Designer from 6th January 2025 until her resignation on 8th July 2025. The dispute relates to a constructive unfair dismissal brought under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The worker described a situation where in the afternoon of 24th April 2025, she and her team lead were to review the design elements of a project that was underway. The worker had joined the employment in January 2025 and stated that on the afternoon of 24th April 2025, her team lead said to her that “it wasn’t working out” and that she “was not what she had made herself out to be” prior to joining the organisation. The worker also outlined other issues in respect how her team lead accused her of having a bad tone as well as a lack of commitment in terms of not wanting to work late etc. The worker outlined that there were communication issues within the team and that she would miss deadlines that she was unaware of and would then be blamed for missing same. The worker also stated that review meetings would take place without any notice, and she felt that she was not receiving any mentorship or support from her team lead. The worker felt that she only received unfair criticism. The worker stated that there were many incidents of unfair treatment towards her in the weeks that followed and she began to feel unhappy in her role and her mental health was affected. The worker stated that she was fearful she would be dismissed if she raised any issues with the employer. The worker stated that she raised the issue informally with HR and began a period of sick leave. The worker stated that she was open to return to work and sought accommodations such as a different reporting structure, a different place to sit and to be facilitated with working from home on occasion. The worker also sought accommodations in respect of her ADHD diagnosis that would assist her at work. The worker also stated that a performance improvement plan (PIP) was mentioned to her during the initial grievance meeting which she found grossly unfair given she had raised grievances about how she was being treated by her team lead and another senior member of staff. As the accommodations she had sought could not be guaranteed as well as the introduction of the PIP and the employer’s failure to address the grievances, the worker felt that she had no option but to leave her employment and resigned with effect from 8th July 2025.

The employer’s position is that the worker did not act reasonably in resigning from her employment prior to the conclusion of the internal grievance process. The employer contends that there were issues of concern relating to the worker’s performance since she commenced in her employment in January 2025. The employer stated that these issues were dealt with informally in the early stages of the employment. The employer stated that it arranged a meeting for 29th April 2025 so that the issues concerning the worker’s performance could be discussed with her. The employer stated that having received her grievances, it made every effort to address the issues raised by the worker and to facilitate her return to work. However, the accommodations that had been sought were not practical and could not be agreed due to operational constraints. The employer does not accept the worker’s position that it did not attempt to address her grievances or accommodate her return to work. The employer’s position is that the worker resigned from her employment while the grievance investigation process was ongoing and confirmed her resignation due to the employer’s inability to provide the accommodations she had sought. The employer re-iterated its position that the worker was required to conclude the grievance process before resigning and her failure to do so was unreasonable as it prevented the employer from addressing the issues she had raised and resolving matters which would have facilitated her return to work. The employer contends that due to the worker’s failure to allow the conclusion of the grievance process prior to her resignation, her complaint cannot succeed.

The within dispute concerns a worker who resigned from her employment and is claiming constructive unfair dismissal. The worker had less than one years’ service with the employer and on that basis, the dispute is referred under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In respect of industrial relations referrals, the internal grievance procedures should be exhausted before the worker resigns and refers the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. However, there are some circumstances where concluding a grievance process is impossible because of a perception of unfairness or other issues that result in the worker’s lack of trust and confidence in the grievance process.

In this referral, the worker raised complaints in relation to how she was treated by two senior staff members on 24th April 2025 and in the weeks that followed. The worker initially chose the informal route to address her grievances and then when matters were not progressed fairly in her view, and when she had lost confidence in the informal process, she raised a formal grievance. The worker also commenced a period of sick leave and did not return to complete the grievance process as she felt the accommodations she had sought were not considered by the employer and the two managers she had complained about were directly involved in the process concerning her accommodations and return to work. The worker confirmed her resignation and left the employment with effect from 8th July 2025.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties to this dispute, I am satisfied that the worker was in a very difficult position from April 2025 onwards. The performance issues that the employer claimed existed earlier in the employment were not pursued beyond informal conversations, which the worker stated never took place at all until after she had raised her grievances. Once she raised issues concerning how she had been treated by the two senior staff members on 24th April 2025, she was then informed for the first time that a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was being considered because of issues with her performance. The worker considered the PIP to be retaliatory in nature due to the grievances she had raised. The worker stated that there were many other incidents of unfair treatment towards her that took place after 24th April 2025 which resulted in a deterioration of her mental health and a period of sick leave. The worker also tried to seek reasonable accommodation for her return to work and in respect of her ADHD diagnosis, which the employer was aware of, and which could have assisted in her return to work. I am satisfied that these requests for accommodation were not considered in any meaningful way by the employer.

In all the circumstances of the dispute, I find that the worker acted reasonably in her decision to resign from her employment. I find that she was reasonable to form the view that she was not being accommodated to return to work and that the introduction of the PIP came about after she had raised grievances about two senior staff members and how she had been treated by them. Given the effect the situation had on the worker’s health, I find that she acted reasonably in her decision to resign and in her confirmation of same following a period of reflection.

As this is an industrial relations referral, the legal principles of a referral under the Unfair Dismissal’s Act 1977 do not apply. The applicable remedy in this referral is for the adjudication officer to make a recommendation on the merits of the dispute considering whether the worker was treated fairly by the employer.

In conclusion, I find that the worker was not treated fairly by the employer, particularly concerning the introduction of the PIP immediately after she had raised her grievances. This undoubtedly affected the worker’s confidence in the employer and its efforts to address her concerns and support her in her return to work. Based on the unfair treatment, I find in favour of the worker and recommend that she receive compensation from the employer.

Having considered the matter, I recommend that the worker be paid €8,000.00 in compensation.

Grievance procedures, unfair treatment, accommodations, PIP.