Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Grace  Brannock

Carlow Dental Centre Carlow Dental Centre (Cdc) Ltd

Representatives

Alison Martin Walkers(Ireland) LLP

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-00070869-002

16/04/2025

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent, a Dental Clinic, in January 2014. Her employment ended on 25 October 2024.  At the time the complainant’s employment ended her title was, Patient Experience Manager/Treatment Co-ordinator.  The complainant was paid €3,000 gross per month. A complaint form was received by the WRC on 16 April 2025, alleging that the complainant had been constructively dismissed from her employment with the respondent.

The complainant provided a detailed written submission.

In her submission the complainant submits that there were a number of incidents which clearly indicated to her that she was no longer wanted as an employee. These incidents started in or around April 2024. Her working relationship with, William Hayfron, business owner and martin Deane, business manager, began to deteriorate.  The complainant cites various incidents; denial of access to the managerial information system, exposure to explicit sexual content on a communal work device, the responsibility for hiring new staff been removed from her.

On return from her annual leave in August 2024, the complainant submits that she experienced other incidents which undermined her position; she was branded a bully at a team meeting by Mr Hayfron; being excluded from a Carlow Chamber of Commerce Event; the removal of the responsibility of preparing reception and patient treatment rosters was taken from her; comments made to her by a dentist regarding her departure.

In September 2024, the complainant submits that her access to the management IT system was completely removed, meaning she could no longer fulfil certain tasks. She was also contacted to attend a meeting about a possible redundancy situation as her role was at risk of being made redundant.  She attended a meeting at which vague information was given to her about the financial situation within the clinic.  She did not receive information on the matrix that used to determine that her position was at risk. A second meeting to discuss a redundancy took place on 8 October 2024.  At no time did the complainant believe a genuine redundancy existed. The following day the complainant submitted a list of grievances to management.  She was given no timeframe within which her grievances would be addressed. A subsequent email to her stated that her proposed redundancy had been suspended. On 16 October 2024, the complainant submits that she was locked out of her work email by management.

On 25 October 2024, having failed to get any correspondence [from management] in relation to her grievances, or the proposed redundancy of her position, the complainant resigned her employment, as she believed she had no other option.

The complainant gave evidence at the hearing on affirmation.

The complainant stated that she started work with the respondent in 2014, on a temporary contract which subsequently became a permanent contract. She loved working in the clinic. There were no problems until 2024.

In March 2024, the complainant was informed of structural changes planned for the clinic.  She was offered a substantial pay increase as part of this mooted re-structuring.  The complainant raised concerns she had about working with Mr Deane but having considered the off er she accepted it and her pay was increased, along with a contribution to child care costs, from March 2024.

However, in April 2024, having attended a grievance meeting related to another colleague, the complainant stated that shortly after the meeting she was approached by Dr Hayfrom, who demanded the notes of the meeting from her; she was surprised by this approach.

From the end of April 2024, the complainant says she experienced a change in attitude from Dr Hayfron, towards her. He removed her access to a particular software package, to which she needed access, he said it was because he did not want her to have access to information on salaries. The complainant believed her other tasks were being reduced with little or no explanation.

The complainant stated that Dr Hayfron decided that she should not attend the Carlow Chamber of Commerce Awards Night, she felt humiliated by this as she believed she should have been at the awards.

In September 2024, the complainant stated that the task of Reception scheduling was removed from her and given to another employee. This particular change was announced via a WhatsApp message when the complainant was out, she believes she should have been the person to make this change public. In the same month she was also removed from recruiting people for the reception roles.

On 23 September 2024, the last day the complainant attended for work, she attempted to attend a Management Meeting on three occasions only to be rebuffed each time. Eventually she was informed that the Management Meeting was not going ahead. That same morning the complainant stated that she had been blanked by Dr Hayfrom, when he walked by her without any attempt to make eye contact, or to say hello; this was passive aggressive behaviour she believes.

On 24 September 2024, the complainant stated that she was asked to attend a Redundancy Consultation meeting. On 26 September 2024, she called in sick. When the meeting did take place, 30 September 2024, the complainant says she was not comfortable asking anyone to attend with her, so decided to record the meeting, unbeknownst to the other people at the meeting.   The managers present explained that the clinic was in a difficult financial position and they told the complainant what they were offering her; she was offered the role of Senior Receptionist.  She felt she should have had two options. Following this meeting, the complainant stated that there was some toing and froing but no clear options were being put to her. When she asked what matrix was being used to decide on redundancies, she was told it was based on finances. The role she was offered was, in the eyes of the complainant, a demotion; her original tasks had been passed to others.  The complainant stated that she believed the respondent did not want to get rid of her role but rather they wanted to get rid of her.

On 9 October 2024, the complainant submitted a Grievance Letter.  This elicited a response from management stating that the redundancy was being “postponed”. On 16 October 2024, while still out on sick leave, the complainant’s access to her email was revoked.  The complainant stated that she could not take any more, they were “trying to break me down”, they were trying to slow down her grievance being processed.

On Friday 25 October 2024, the complainant states that she contacted Dr S with her resignation, citing constructive dismissal. A letter asking her to reconsider her decision to resign, which only allowed her 24 to consider her decision, was only received after the deadline to respond had passed.

In response to questions put to her in cross examination, the complainant stated that there had been a change in the attitude of Dr Hayfron towards her from April 2024 onwards. She accepted that Mr Deane was responsible for HR matters in the clinic but she did receive a lot of emails from staff on HR matters. Regarding Dr Hayfron ignoring her when they passed each other the complainant stated that this happened on her last days o she did not have a chance to raise it but she did include it in her grievance.  Regarding her grievances the complainant accepted that she had not raised on of these matters prior to her grievance letter being submitted.

When asked about the redundancy consultation meetings the complainant stated that she had recorded them surreptitiously because her relationships had broken down. When it was put to her that the transcript of the meeting indicated that the respondents wanted to consult with her on the situation, the complainant stated that they did, to a point. On being offered the role of senior Receptionist, the complainant stated that acceptance of the offer would have resulted in her accepting a significant pay reduction, from €30 per hour to €16 per hour and the loss of€480 per month in child care allowances.  She did not make any suggestions on alternatives. The complainant accepted she was told the possible redundancy situation had a risen due to the difficult financial position in which the clinic found itself, but she was not given any evidence to support this assertion.

Regarding her grievance, the complainant denied that two weeks was not an unreasonable time frame to address an extensive list of grievances; she found it reasonable that she resigned due to the lack of communications on the matter from the respondent. She accepted there was no breach of her contract. 

When questioned about seeking work, the complainant stated that she started applying for alternative employment from mid-October 2024 and that she was offered a position before she resigned. When it was put to her that she was never going to reconsider her position, the complainant agreed. She had been out of work for two weeks and had started doing interviews for alternative employment in mid-October 2024.

A Ms Petra Polonka, a former employee of the respondent, gave evidence on oath on behalf of the complainant. The witness stated that in her view a single person could not look after Hr and Payroll. She stated that she had at one time raised a grievance and that although on paper it was dealt with by Dr S, the reality of the matter was that it had been dr Hayfron who had done it.

A Ms Zara Mooney gave evidence on oath on behalf of the complainant.  The witness stated that she had started in the clinic in March 2022 as a receptionist, she reported to the complainant.  Aked about specific incidents of bullying, the witness stated that some of the reception team were reporting to the complainant and some to Mr Deane, she believed she was still reporting to the complainant and she was concerned when Mr Deane said she should report to him.  She stated that she did see a change in attitude towards the complainant by the business owners in April 2024.

In closing the complainant stated that her duties had been removed from her.

The respondent provided a detailed written submission.

The respondent denies the claim of unfair dismissal.

The respondent submits that in 2024, there were significant business challenges arising both operationally and financially.  In September 2024, it became clear the that a restructuring was required.  It was considered that eliminating overlapping roles could reduce costs and also that a flatter structure would address operational inefficiencies. The role of Patient Experience Manager was identified as a role that might be impacted. The complainant was not personally selected for redundancy as she alleges. Rather the role she held, was a stand-alone position that was identified as being at risk of redundancy.

By letter of 25 September 20924, the complainant was invited to a redundancy consultation meeting at which she was made aware that her role was provisionally at risk of redundancy, but no decision had been made on the matter.

The complainant went sick on 26 September 2024.  A meeting took place on 30 September at which the business rationale for a possible redundancy was discussed. A further consultation meeting was held on 8 October 2024, at which alternatives to redundancy were discussed.  The complainant was offered one of the roles in the proposed new structure, that of Senior Receptionist, as a possible alternative to redundancy.  The respondent submits that the complainant made no proposals to avoid redundancy and was more interested in the figures around the redundancy.

By letter dated 9 October 2024, the complainant set out “detailed grievances” concerning Dr Hayfron and Mr Deane, with allegations that she asserted had occurred over the previous six months.  On 11 October 2024, in response to the complainant’s grievances Mr Sallai replied that having considered her grievances, it had been decided to suspend or possibly withdraw the redundancy consultation process while her concerns were addressed. By email of 11 October the complainant replied to Mr Sallai, thanking him for his swift response and the respondent submits, unreasonably seeking a detailed response to all her grievances within the next seven days.  By registered letter dated 23 October, Mr Sallai responded to the complainant, confirming his commitment to thoroughly address the issues raised by the complainant in her grievance. Outlining some factors that would impact on the timeframe for dealing with the grievance.

By way of WhatsApp message on 25 October 2024, the complainant resigned.  By registered letter of 31 October 2024, Mr Sallai wrote to the complainant expressing shock at her decision to resign, explaining the respondent’s position and inviting her to reconsider her resignation.  The complainant did not contact the respondent to confirm she wished to withdraw her resignation and all sums due to her, were processed through the payroll. 

Dr Kristian Sallai gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing.

The witness stated that he was an owner of the business.  When he received the complainant’s grievance, he contacted Mr Deane and a decision was made to postpone the redundancy until the grievance had been investigated and he replied to the complainant to let her know of this decision.  When the complainant replied looking for a response in seven days, he wrote a letter to her stating that as it was a detailed grievance more time was required.

The witness did not understand why the complainant had resigned when procedures had not been exhausted. He asked the complainant to reconsider her decision but he did not hear anything back from her.

Regarding the financial position of the clinic, Dr Sallai stated that in June/July 2024, the business was looking at a significant loss and the owners felt they had to restructure.

In response to questions put to him in cross examination, Dr Sallai conceded that he had not considered appointing an outside appointment to investigate the complainant’s grievances as he had not had time to do so. He also accepted that there had been no meeting with the complainant to discuss her grievance before she resigned.  Dr Sallai stated they were only planning what they should do when Dr Hayfron came back from leave.

Mr Martin Deane gave evidence on oath at the hearing.

Mr Deane stated that he had started in the marketing area when he was first employed by the respondent in 2021.  However, when a member of the team left in April 2024, he took over responsibility for payroll, hiring staff, contracts, good culture and HR matters.

The witness explained that it was he who attended the Carlow Chamber of Commerce Awards as he was head of marketing.

He denied the complainant’s allegation that recruitment duties were taken from her, these duties, he stated, were absolutely not taken from her; he was in charge of HR and she only worked three days per week.

Mr Deane stated that the complainant had been offered the position of Senior Receptionist because she was a valued member of staff.  During the consultation on redundancy the complainant had not put forward any suggestions. when the grievance came in from the complainant, it was decided to pause the redundancy process because they were serious grievances and many of them.

In response to questions put to him in cross examination Mr Deane stated that no finance evidence was given to the complainant apart from a general indication that there were financial problems. He accepted the offer made to the complainant would have meant a pay reduction for her. The witness stated that other positions were discussed [in terms of redundancy] but the only meeting that actually took place with regard to possible redundancies was the meeting with the complainant.

The witness stated that the complainant was the only member of staff with the title, “Patient Services Manager”.

Dr William Hayfron gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing.

The witness stated that he is one of the business owners and principal dentist. In August/September it became obvious the clinic was in serious financial difficulties and the business needed to restructure. Management were looking at options.

Regarding the allegation made that he had blanked the complainant, Dr Hayfron stated that he was surprised to hart this allegation.  He could not recall the alleged incident.  Regarding the meeting with the complainant the witness stated that he was not aware that the complainant was recording it. He had the idea of a Senior Receptionist role but he had hoped the complainant would come up with some suggestions of her own; “nothing was carved in stone”.

Dr Hayfron stated that it was Dr Sallai who decided that the redundancy discussions should be put on hold because he felt the complainant’s grievance should be investigated first. Dr Hayfron was out sick during this period.

The witness denied the assertion that the complainant’s roles were being removed from her, that this was a case of task erosion.  Rather he stated that the business was trying to get overlaps in roles so all positions were covered.

In response to questions put to him in cross examination, Dr Hayfron stated that HR looks after recruitment. These tasks had not been taken from the complainant, rather the business had restructured.

When asked whether the Patient Experience Manager position replaced, Dr Hayfron stated that it had not, there are now senior and Junior Receptionists.

In closing, the Respondent put forward that in cases of constructive dismissal the burden of proof lies with the complainant.

The complainant had accepted there had not been a breach of contract.

Nothing so unreasonable had taken place that she had to resign.

She was not made redundant.

There was no reason for her to resign.

It is fatal to her case that she did not exhaust the grievance process.

If there was a delay in dealing with her grievance, which is denied, it could not be called an unreasonable delay. By her own evidence the complainant was applying for jobs at this time and it is put forward that her resignation was a factor.

Undoubtedly, in late summer, early autumn 2024, the business was required to review all aspects of its structure due to increasing financial difficulties.  The complainant’s role was looked at closely and a redundancy process was commenced. As things progressed in the process, the complainant ended her employment with the respondent in October 2024. This complaint is therefore one of constructive dismissal.

The Unfair Dismissals Act and the resulting jurisprudence have set a high bar in relation to what will justify the termination of a contract of employment. It is, after all, a breach of a legally binding contract.

In the case of an employer wishing to do so, there must be cause, a fair process must have been followed and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable sanctions in relation to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings.

It is relatively easy for an employee to terminate their employment by simply resigning and in most, if not all cases an action for breach of contract is unlikely to arise.

When an employee terminates the contract of employment and then makes a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal that is a different matter.

In ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’ the late Dr Mary Redmond has said (at p340)

There is something of a mirror image between constructive dismissal and ordinary dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so true an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance, The duty is an imperative in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist they should be followed: Conway v Ulster bank Limited. In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning and without first having ‘substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints

The Supreme Court has said that;

‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’

Per Finnegan J in Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61

In such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, this reference to the employer’s conduct is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the complainant’s resignation and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment.

In relation to the employee’s behaviour this normally refers to the efforts that a complainant made to bring the matter to the employer’s attention and to have it remedied by means of the grievance machinery.

Looked at by reference to either of the above tests the complainant does not come anywhere close to the burden of proof necessary to ground her case.

I find the behaviour of the employer was not unreasonable and the complainant herself has accepted that there was no breach of contract.

The EAT has made it clear in a series of decisions, and followed by the Adjudication Service that failure to use company procedures to address a grievance is a necessity (and see again Dr Redmond’s remarks above)

For example, in Patricia Barry-Relph v HSE t/a HSE North West. [2016] 27 E.L.R 268

‘The Tribunal finds that the claimant do not give her employer an opportunity to date with her complaints. The tribunal further notes that the claimant resigned on obtaining alternative employment in January 2014. Her resignation was tendered in circumstances where she failed to any of the several avenues open to her.

And in Zabiello v Ashgrove Facility Management Ltd UD1106/2008 the Tribunal stated;

For a claim of constructive dismissal to succeed the claimant needs to satisfy the tribunal that her working conditions were such that she had no choice but to resign. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant had difficulties with her line manager. However, for a period of six months she did not attempt to resolve the issue.

In Kirwan v Primark (UD 270/2003) the EAT held noted that the claimant said that she was only going through the motions and therefore there was not a genuine attempt to utilise the grievance procedures and her case failed.

In this case, the complainant did raise a grievance but I find she did not give enough time to the respondent to carry out an investigation into that grievance. The complainant submitted her grievance on 9 October 2024, received a response on 11 October, wrote to the respondent on 11 October looking for answers to her grievances within seven days and then resigned on 25 October.

I find the complainant’s haste in resigning from her job, to be unreasonable.

The respondent also wrote to the complainant asking her to reconsider her decision to resign and although this letter was received after the date on which she was asked to respond to the respondent, she could, if she had so wished, have contacted her employer to open a dialogue on that matter.

The complainant’s peremptory resignation without exhausting the clinic’s grievance procedures is fatal to her case on these facts.

I note the complainant had already started applying for jobs elsewhere in mid-October 2024.

The complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Constructive dismissal, contract, behaviour, grievance procedures