Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aidan  Hynes

Vhi Healthcare DAC

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Denis Hynes

Lian Rooney IBEC

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-00071631-001

16/05/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Consumer Sales Agent on 1 March 2019. He stated that he was left with no alternative but to submit his resignation on 21 October 2024 as a result of an intolerable work environment.

The Complainant stated that he had maintained an impeccable work record with the Respondent until he made a complaint concerning his unsuccessful application for a Team Leader promotion in 2022. He stated that he subsequently raised several other difficulties he was experiencing in the workplace in an email of 23 October 2024, further to notice of his intention to resign on 21 October 2024, and that these matters formed the basis of his decision to terminate his employment. Following this, on 13 November 2024, he informed a member of the Respondent’s HR department that their Occupational Health Nurse had advised him to leave his employment due to the level of work‑related stress he was experiencing.

The Complainant further stated that he suffered a blackout during which he lost consciousness, resulting in a two‑day hospital admission. He said that he was assessed by a cardiologist who attributed the episode primarily to stress.

The Complainant’s position is that, for medical reasons and due to what he described as an orchestrated management campaign against him, he ultimately ceased working on 22 November 2024, which was his final day of employment. He alleged that he was unable to work out his notice period because, in his view, members of the management team were no longer speaking to him.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s resignation was voluntary, premature, and taken without affording the organisation a reasonable opportunity to address any concerns. The Respondent stated that they acted appropriately at all times, in accordance with internal policy, and that no conduct of theirs could reasonably be interpreted as creating an intolerable working environment for the Complainant.

1. Background to the Resignation

Until the evening of 21 October 2024, the Respondent asserted that they had not been made aware of any significant dissatisfaction or unresolved workplace concerns on the part of the Complainant. On that date, the Complainant emailed HR People Services announcing his intention to resign and describing the situation as constructive dismissal. The correspondence referenced stress, medical issues, and a series of workplace grievances that had not previously been formally raised.

The Respondent’s HR team contacted the Complainant within two days, inviting him to attend an informal meeting, offering the support of the Employee Assistance Programme, and asking him to reconsider his decision to resign. The Complainant was advised of his entitlement to representation by a colleague or trade union official. While he initially sought to have a family member present, this was not permitted under policy.

An in‑person meeting was held in Kilkenny on 31 October 2024, which the Complainant attended alone. At that meeting, HR again encouraged him to reconsider his resignation. The Complainant confirmed that he intended to proceed with resigning, citing medical advice.

2. Grievance Investigation Initiated by the Respondent

Notwithstanding the Complainant’s confirmation that he wished to resign, the Respondent proceeded to initiate a formal grievance investigation in accordance with its internal procedures. The Complainant’s allegations were set out across ten points, covering matters such as:

·         alleged age‑related remarks in respect of a promotional process,

·         negative comments about his sales style,

·         concerns regarding bonus calculation,

·         dissatisfaction about opportunities for development and support roles,

·         events surrounding a work‑related function,

·         environmental comfort issues in the workplace,

·         difficulties obtaining approval for medical appointments,

·         concerns regarding post‑surgery accommodations,

·         claims of being excluded from call‑listening or training opportunities, and

·         alleged changes in colleagues’ behaviour following the raising of complaints.

The Respondent’s investigation involved interviews with more than ten individuals, including team leaders, managers, advisors, compliance and quality personnel, and HR staff. Documentary evidence—including emails, performance information, call‑quality records, and operational data—was reviewed. The Complainant was repeatedly asked to submit any supporting documentation he wished to rely upon. In several instances, he did not provide the evidence he stated he held.

A comprehensive outcome report was issued on 31 January 2025.

3. Findings of the Investigation

The Respondent’s investigation substantiated one allegation only:

A manager did confirm making a comment to the effect that the Complainant “was not a good salesman as he only took orders.” The Respondent accepted that the remark could reasonably have caused offence.

All other allegations were found to be unsubstantiated on the basis of:

·         contradictory witness testimony,

·         absence of supporting documentation,

·         lack of any recorded complaint at the time,

·         evidence that the events did not occur as alleged,

·         or reliance on hearsay rather than direct observation.

Summary of Key Findings

·         Promotion Process: No evidence that age influenced the selection outcome; the successful candidate was of similar age.

·         Bonus Dispute: The Complainant’s rating was based on a holistic review of performance; there was no mistake and no appeal was pursued.

·         Support Worker Opportunities: Any temporary assignment was withdrawn following standard compliance reviews. No improper exclusion occurred.

·         Work related function: The Respondent acknowledged that there was a discussion on professionalism but denied any allegations of accusation, disciplinary threat, or unfair singling‑out.

·         Cold Vent Issue: No record of a complaint, helpdesk ticket, or supporting evidence.

·         Medical Appointments: The single appointment cited by the Complainant was in fact approved.

·         Post‑Surgery Accommodations: Occupational Health recommendations were followed; no instruction to “work like everyone else” was made.

·         Call‑Listening/Training Exclusion: Records confirm the Complainant continued to have trainees assigned to him; allegations of “blacklisting” were unsupported.

·         Colleague Behaviour: Witnesses indicated limited interaction only due to differing schedules and the Complainant’s sick leave absences.

·         Union Representation: The trade union confirmed representation was offered but ultimately not taken up by the Complainant.

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

As dismissal as a fact is in dispute, it is for the Complainant to establish as a matter of probability that his employment came to an end in circumstances amounting to a dismissal within the meaning of the Act.

The case law envisages two circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal which is unfair within the meaning of the Act. Firstly, where the employer’s conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment, the employee would be entitled to regard himself as having been dismissed and the dismissal was unfair. In the UK Court of Appeal, Lord Denning, in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332, held that

“an employer must be “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 or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance”.

A line of authorities has since established this decision as defining the “contract test”.

Secondly, an additional ‘reasonableness’ test may be relied upon as either an alternative to the contract test or in combination with that test. This test asks whether the employer conducted his or her affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, and, if so, he/she is justified in leaving. It is clear from the case law, that in addition to asserting that an employer acted unreasonably, an employee must also conduct themselves reasonably prior to resigning if they are to succeed in a case for constructive dismissal.

The Complainant stated that he was left with no alternative but to resign on 21 October 2024 before invoking any internal grievance process, and before notifying the Respondent of the majority of the concerns he later relied upon. There was no evidence presented to suggest that the Respondent was aware of an alleged intolerable situation prior to the resignation email.

The Complainant also stated in evidence that the Respondent’s own Occupational Health Nurse advised him to leave his employment due to high levels of stress. He further asserted that subsequently, on 13 November 2024, he informed a member of the Respondent’s HR department of this advice.

Even if I accept this evidence in full, it does not alter the outcome. The test for constructive dismissal does not turn on whether the Complainant felt stressed or aggrieved, but on whether the employer’s conduct created an intolerable working environment and whether the Complainant acted reasonably by giving the employer a fair opportunity to address the underlying issues before resigning. The obligation on an employee to raise matters internally in the first instance was set out plainly by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd (UD474/1981), where it held that an employee who resigns without substantially engaging the grievance procedure cannot normally be said to have acted reasonably.

If the Complainant was experiencing severe work‑related stress, it was incumbent upon him prior to his resignation to:

• alert the Respondent to the causes of that stress, and
• allow the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to remedy any alleged problems.

He did neither. The Respondent was not made aware of the alleged causes of stress until after the resignation had already been tendered.

Once the concerns were raised, the Respondent acted promptly and supportively: HR contacted the Complainant, offered EAP assistance, invited him to reconsider, and facilitated a meeting. At that meeting, the Complainant confirmed his decision to resign.

Despite the Complainant’s confirmation that he did not wish to remain in employment, and much to their credit, the Respondent initiated a formal grievance investigation covering ten separate categories of allegations.

The investigation involved more than ten witnesses, and extensive documentary evidence was examined. The Complainant was repeatedly asked to submit documents he stated he had; in several cases these were not provided.

A written outcome issued on 31 January 2025.

While the Complainant’s representative made much of the fact that the formal investigation took approximately three months from initiation to outcome, the evidence indicates that the appointed Investigator experienced a family bereavement during this period, which reasonably impacted scheduling.

Having considered the timeline and the volume of witnesses and documentation reviewed, I am satisfied that the duration of the investigation was not unreasonably long in the circumstances.

Even if I were to find that the investigation was excessively lengthy—which for the avoidance of doubt I do not—this would not assist the Complainant’s constructive‑dismissal complaint. This is because:

• The Complainant did not rescind his resignation at any point, including before the investigation commenced despite having been invited to do so; and
• The Complainant did not appeal the investigation outcome, despite being expressly given the opportunity to do so.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that:

• There was no fundamental breach of contract by the Respondent.
• The Respondent did not engage in conduct that could reasonably be regarded as destroying the relationship of trust and confidence. The single inappropriate remark upheld in the investigation does not constitute a repudiatory breach of contract.
• The Complainant did not exhaust, or meaningfully engage with, the internal procedures available to him prior to his resignation.

Bearing in mind that the legal threshold for constructive dismissal is high, and considering all of the foregoing points, I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed.

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