Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Pre School

Representatives

 Appeared in person with support from husband.

Eileen Hayes Hallissey & Partners LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004873

05/08/2025

On 5 August 2025, the worker, an early year’s educator, Room lead, submitted a workplace dispute for the attention of the WRC.

On 12 August 2025, this was shared with the Employer, who did not object to an investigation under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Both Parties attended for hearing on 20 February 2026, having both filed helpful submissions.

I heard both narratives of the dispute as background.

On that day, I was fortunate on the conclusion of the hearing , to be accepted by both parties as an intermediary to explore a mutually acceptable resolution to the Dispute.

This approach found favour with the parties, and they reached a mutual agreement, which was contingent on the worker agreeing to withdraw her case on or before 25 February 2026.

This date  came and went without withdrawal. The WRC made a follow up phone contact to  the worker, without response .

On 26 February 2026, I wrote to both parties.

I write today in follow up to the conclusion of your hearing last Friday, February 20, 2026.

You will recall that both Parties were heard on their respective narratives of the dispute.

I explained to both parties that the hearing was being held in private and any eventual Recommendation would be anonymised.

I also explained that I carried a certain discretion to explore a mutually agreeable resolution in the case. At the conclusion of the hearing, both parties expressed an interest in exploring that mechanism on a without prejudice basis.

I travelled between your meeting rooms and after detailed engagement, the parties agreed to adopt a mutually agreeable settlement of the case.

This settlement was committed to paper and signed by both parties.

I witnessed this action and each party left the building having expressed a gratitude to the WRC.

One course of action remained.

The Worker gave an undertaking that she would withdraw her claim on foot of the signed agreement on or before Wednesday, February 25, 2026.

The Employer has requested an update on this planned course of action.

I have followed up only to learn that no notice of withdrawal has been received from (the worker). The case officer followed (the worker) up by phone in addition to checking the PRU mailbox.

I cannot move the anticipated withdrawal any further.

I write this afternoon to inform the parties that the hearing has concluded in this case.

I must now move to explore the possibility of my being able to make a Recommendation in this case in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

I will issue my findings in that regard within 14 days, and both parties will have a right of appeal to the Labour Court.

Once more, thank you for attending the WRC on this matter.

The identical correspondence will issue to the Employer.

Yours sincerely,

Patsy Doyle, Adjudicator

There was no further contact from the worker.

I am bound by Section 13(3) (a) to investigate this dispute and

“Make a Recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth her opinion on the merits of the dispute “

My Recommendation follows.

The Worker worked as a Pre School Educator with the Employer business from 29 August 2024 to 23 July 2025 on a 26.5 hr week. She has since relaunched to another service.

The Worker outlined her dispute that she had concerns regarding the pre school environment she found herself in. Issues of concern to her were not addressed and she believed she was being isolated. She believed her actions in support of children and families were repeatedly misinterpreted.

This culminated in her losing her room lead position and caused “humiliation and embarrassment in the workplace … has shattered my confidence “and caused her to leave.

By way of written submission, the worker raised a grievance with the WRC and contended that she had been constructively dismissed.

By way of example, the worker detailed events from June 2025, where the worker outlined an incident during the aftermath of a school graduation where she was requested to assist with moving chairs. The proprietor had interrupted a conversation with a parent, which left her feeling diminished.

The Worker left work on June 9 due to illness and contended she was chastised for that action.

She was disappointed in the follow up conversation with the Proprietor, which seemed to cause the worker to feel further alienated. She contended that she was told to leave the business but refused.

The next day, the worker was informed she was no longer the room lead, the job she was hired to do.

She was unhappy but pressed on from a sense of duty to the children and their parents to year end.

The worker concluded that she had “no genuine alternative but to resign “

On 23 July 2025, during school holidays, the worker forwarded the following email:

“It is with regret that I will not be returning to my position in August. Please accept this email as my note of resignation.”

At hearing, the worker recounted her experience at the preschool, which was largely without incident until June 2025.

She confirmed that she found new work in the same sector and had successfully relaunched.

She carried a discernible high level of residual anger regarding her experience at the pre school which she concluded was wholly unwarranted.

I was keen to identify what, if any disputes resolution mechanism had been attempted in this case.?

The grievance was lodged first in time with the WRC post employment .

When requested to identify a possible preferred way forward in this dispute, the worker visibly struggled to identify this for me.

During the hearing, it became clear that the worker had made a similar statement of concern to the Pre School Inspection service but had not received an outcome from this process.

The Employer came to hearing to respond to the Dispute raised but disputed any reference made to bullying /harassment/ Constructive dismissal.

The Employer agreed to amend the legal title on consent. The worker had signed a contract of employment.

Ms Hayes outlined the Pre School businesses operated by the Employer and confirmed that staff retention rate was high in this workplace and staff relations were positive on “ an open door principle “.

” The working environment was fluid with the priority always being the well being of the children |”

The Employer confirmed that the worker had not submitted a grievance during her tenure.

The Employer  placed a different context and background to the workers observations of criticism and hostility of the June 2025. The worker was requested to assist in the post-graduation clean up. She had not notified the Proprietor before leaving to go home on sick leave and had  identified issues of professional boundaries on the worker’s side.

It was the Employer case that efforts were made to tease things out between the employer and worker following the events of early June and it was the employer’s contention “that had sorted it out “and were both looking forward to the next academic year.

During the hearing, the Employer articulated a verbal apology for any upset caused to the worker during the course of her work.

The Employer acknowledged that the Complaints procedure adopted at the business could be repurposed to reflect a grievance procedure for staff use going into the future.

Ms Hayes contended that the case was without merit and should be dismissed.

The employment ended on 23 July 2025 .

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Both Parties presented a very clear perspective of their interpretation of the short working relationship.

The Worker came across as very excited to be called on to be a Room Leader and wanted to give this her best shot.

She passed her probation and was keen to belong at the business.

It is accepted that the worker became unhappy at work from June 2025 up to and including her email of resignation on 23 June 2025.

She did not record a reason for her resignation. She not request an investigation of the occurrences now relied on .

The Employer did not have any concerns about the Worker until strands of discontent became visible from June 2025.

The Employer came to hearing with a visible pride in the business she operated and was clearly troubled by the workers reports of disconnect and criticism.

The Employer contended that she trialled an informal disputes resolution process in June, which she believed had succeeded.

She was surprised to receive the workers resignation but accepted it and did not request her to reconsider.

The Employer was troubled by the level of discontent demonstrated by the worker, which she stated was not reciprocated within the existent workforce.

It was the employer who volunteered that the worker had made a very similar complaint to the Pre School Inspection service which had not identified any wrong doing at the business .

For my part, I explained to the parties, that a claim under Industrial Relations is best suited to a live employment, where something may have the capacity of being “fixed “.

This employment has ended and will not relaunch for either party.

In a dispute between a worker and her employer, I look for the tools available which might fix things. That is why I always ask the parties to identify, if they can “What will fix this? “

The Worker came to hearing with a visible high level of anger, which had not dissipated in the intervening period from June 2025 – February 2026.

The Employer came to hearing to defend their business against what they believed were unfounded allegations.

For my part, I found two very different versions of an employment relationship.

I found a well written contract of employment. I found an expanded what app dossier of cordial interactions between the worker and her employer. I found a record of a pay rise when the worker requested it.

I found a resignation, without reason, which was accepted within 1 hour of submission.

I found a worker who was happy in her present job but wanted closure on this particular, employment.

I did not find a grievance procedure or a bullying / harassment policy.

I cannot accept that the comprehensive preschool documentation met the requirements in SI 146/2000 on having a pathway for grievance.

I found that the Employer acted responsibly when they offered an apology for the workers experience at the business at hearing. I found the workers hesitancy to accept this apology as unreasonable.

I say this as the worker was unwilling to counter this proposal through an alternative resolution, thus causing an impasse. I found that the worker had got lost in her grievance and was having difficulties in moving forward.

For my part, I found that the worker carried a large number of unspoken words at the business. She expected the employer to identify her unease when she had not actually challenged her experiences.

The Employer was busy with operational requirements and thought they were being  fair to the worker and her colleagues .

The Labour Court has repeatedly held that they expect a trial of grievance, informal / formal prior to referral to WRC/ Labour Court.

But what is a worker to do when there are no visible tools for conflict resolution available?

My response here is the onus is on the worker to identify in real time  what is wrong and just what a “fix “would look like. This should be done before the sun goes down on an occurrence .

The responsibility then lies on an employer to act on this.

It is only if this does not resolve should a claim come before the States Resolution body of the WRC.

I find that the worker was premature in her referral to the WRC and had not exhausted the potential for internal resolution by dialogue.

I also find that the absence of a reason for leaving and a very rapid acceptance of the resignation did not reflect well on either party.

I appreciate that the worker does not have the legislative standing to mount a Constructive dismissal case, however, the absence of a grievance would feature there at any rate.

I have found that there was some interpersonal conflict between the worker and the owner of the business that could have been safely addressed by dialogue or mediation during live employment.

I acknowledge the apology offered and the commitment to introduce a grievance procedure.

I cannot put the matter any further, apart from wishing the parties well on their chosen work paths.

I have not found merit in this dispute.

Interpersonal conflict in a preschool setting. Lack of grievance procedure. No reason given for resignation.