Complainant

Respondent

Parties

James  Conway

Signature Orthopaedic

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073516-001

16/07/2025

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He outlined that he had a problem with his machine and went to repair the relevant part but appeared to have left it behind in the machine used for that purpose.

The following day, when it had emerged that the machine had been disabled for the night shift his supervisor raised the issue with him. In due course the Operations Director, Mr. O’Connell, joined them and asked him why he had not fixed the machine before his shift ended.

He told him that he had forgotten about it and apologised.

He said to Mr. O’Connell “if you don’t want me, I’ll go’ to which he says Mr. O’Connell replied, ‘Go now’.

He then accompanied him off the premises taking his key card at the exit.

He wrote to letter of grievance the following day complaining about his dismissal and raising other matters also. He referred the matter to the WRC later that day.

Thiscaseconcernswhetherthecomplainantresignedfromhisemploymentorwas dismissedfollowing a workplace interaction on July 16th 2025. Therespondent’spositionisthatnodismissaloccurred.

Thecomplainantcommencedemploymenton October27th, 2023, initiallyas a blastingoperator.He wasthentrainedas aCNC Operator. His role involved operating high-value precision manufacturing equipment in a regulated medical device environment where strict adherence to standard operating procedures, in which employees receive hands-on training and routine instruction, is essential.

The respondent operates in a sector where procedural compliance is critical to ensure product quality, maintain regulatory standards, prevent equipment damage, and sustain production continuity.

Our Employee Handbook provides that adherence to company policies and procedures is a condition of continued employment and that employees are responsible for reading, understanding, and complying with those requirements.

Incident of July 15th, 16th,  2025.

During a discussion regarding a serious breach of procedure in respect of a process with which the complainant was very familiar, he unequivocally stated that he was leaving. He was not instructed to leave, nor was any dismissal communicated.  He then departed the workplace of his own volition.

On the same date, he issued formal correspondence asserting dismissal, raised serious allegations concerning the respondent’s operations, made a financial demand, and lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission. These actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate decision to treat the employment relationship as at an end.

To the extent that he later suggested any retraction, this was not a clear or unconditional request to return to work, but arose in the context of formal allegations, a compensation demand, and an active complaint. In those circumstances, it could not reasonably be interpreted as a genuine attempt to resume the employment relationship.

On July 15th,  2025, the complainant failed to follow a standard operating procedure with which he was familiar through training and routine performance during a tool change on a DMU 5-axis CNC machine.

The required procedure for a tool change  was outlined in the submission, and the process typically takes less than eight minutes and formed a routine part of the complainant’s duties.  He had carried out this on numerous occasions following on-the-job training and instruction.

On this occasion the complainant removed and measured the tool but did not return it to the machine  approximately sixty minutes before the end of his shift. He did not inform the incoming night shift operator during the scheduled handover.

The machine triggered a “Transfer Station Empty” alarm and the night shift operator could not resolve the issue so that the machine remained non-operational for approximately nine hours. The missing tool was located the following day. This resulted in nine hours of lost production on a critical machine.

While the machine in question prevented restart in the absence of a tool, similar failures on other machines operated by the Complainant could have resulted in significant mechanical damage. The potential for such consequences was a primary concern for management and informed the manner in which the issue was addressed.

He was initially questioned by his supervisor on July 16th, and responded that he “must have forgotten” to return the tool. Having regard to the seriousness of the issue and the potential risk to operations, the matter was escalated for further discussion with the VP of Operations, in the presence of the complainant’s supervisor.

During that discussion the seriousness of the procedural failure was explained, and the complainant initially acknowledged the issue. As the discussion progressed, he became agitated and defensive, and concerns were raised regarding both the failure and his initial response

He was reminded of the importance of strict adherence to processes in which he had been trained including reference to a previous incident in which procedures had not been followed, and which had clearly demonstrated the potential consequences of non-compliance, including significant equipment damage and operational disruption.

He then said, “If you're not happy with me, I’m leaving.”

This statement was made in the presence of his direct production supervisor and the VP of Operations who responded that any decision to leave was entirely a matter for the complainant, but that the issue itself required further investigation and review.

At no point was he instructed to leave or dismissed He then immediately left the discussion and exited the premises. As he was visibly agitated, the VP of Operations followed at a distance to ensure that the situation did not escalate and that the complainant exited safely. Outside the building, he returned his Access Card.

This was a practical and proportionate response to the complainant’s stated intention and does not constitute a dismissal.

On several occasions prior to the incident, the complainant responded to routine management engagement by making statements indicating that he would leave employment,

On June 25th,  2025 this arose from a dispute over annual leave and on July 10th  2025 in a dispute over incomplete work from the previous shift. The complainant threatened on both occasions to leave or seek alternative employment, but he did not do so.

We had previously treated such statements as conditional and non-final and had not taken them as resignations. The events of July 16th, 2025 represented a clear departure from that pattern, in that the statement was unequivocal, it was immediately acted upon and was followed by formal escalation, allegations, and legal action on the same date

In those circumstances, the Respondent was entitled to treat his statement as a definitive expression of intent to leave employment, rather than a reactive or conditional remark.

We understand that when an employee resigns in circumstances suggesting that the decision may have been made in the heat of the moment, an employer should ordinarily allow a reasonable opportunity for reconsideration.

In the particular circumstances of this case, this principle does not alter the outcome as the complainant’s statement was clear and immediately acted upon.

He had a history of making similar remarks, but this instance was materially different, and his immediate subsequent conduct fundamentally altered the context, including asserting dismissal, raising serious allegations, making a financial demand and lodging a complaint with the WRC on the same date

These actions are inconsistent with a heat-of-the-moment resignation and instead demonstrate a considered decision to end the employment relationship and pursue the matter externally.

The respondent further submits that it remained open in principle to engagement; however, the Complainant’s actions rendered any meaningful re-engagement impractical.

Followingtheinteraction,the complainantbyemailtoHRManager assertingthathehadbeendismissed, raisingseriousallegations concerningtheRespondent’soperations. He also madeafinancialdemandinexcessof€20,000. Later that evening he lodgedacomplaintwiththeWRC.

He also asserts in his email to the respondent that he had retained documented evidence over the course of the employment to support future claims. He also referenced a number of concerns relating to workplace practices in the same correspondence These matters were not raised through internal channels during the course of employment, and the respondent had no prior opportunity to investigate or address them.

Our Grievance Procedure provides a clear and structured mechanism for employees to raise concerns internally, beginning with informal discussion and escalating where necessary. These procedures were not invoked by the Complainant at any stage of his employment.

The procedure further provides that employees are expected to co-operate with normal working arrangements while such matters are being addressed, which did not occur in this case. This limited the company’s opportunity to investigate, address, or remediate the issues when they allegedly occurred.

The respondent submits that this conduct is inconsistent with an ongoing employment relationship and instead reflects a decision to treat the relationship as terminated.

It was the complainant’s conduct following the interaction, rather than the interaction itself, that rendered the continuation of the employment relationship untenable, having regard to the resulting breakdown in trust and confidence, the regulatory and business risks arising, and the requirement for consistent reliability in a controlled manufacturing environment.

The complainant clearly stated his intention to leave, he acted upon that decision immediately and confirmed that position through subsequent conduct. Accordingly, the employment relationship ended by reason of voluntary resignation, not dismissal, within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015.

The respondent’s Employee Handbook further provides that serious breaches of rules, policies, or procedures, particularly those impacting safety, quality, or operational integrity, may constitute gross misconduct.

The respondent relies on a prior incident involving the complainant as evidence of his clear understanding of the importance of strict procedural compliance, arising from his training and prior experience and the consequences of failure.

This incident resulted in approximately eight weeks of downtime on a CNC machine, repair costs of approximately €42,000 and estimated lost revenue of approximately €270,000 over the 8 week period.

The complainant initially denied responsibility but later acknowledged failing to follow procedure when advised that machine logs would be reviewed.

The respondent acknowledges that no formal disciplinary sanction was imposed at that time. This was a deliberate decision to afford the Complainant an opportunity to demonstrate improved compliance. The absence of formal sanction reflected a decision to support improvement rather than diminish the seriousness of the breach.

The respondent submits that this context makes the subsequent failure on 15 July 2025 a more serious issue.

So, the complainant was fully aware  of procedural requirements arising from training, instruction, and repeated performance and his understanding of the potential consequences of non-compliance. That he had previously been afforded an opportunity to improve without sanction. In that context, the failure on 15 July 2025 represents a serious breach despite clear prior awareness and guidance.

In addition, employees are expressly required under the Employee Handbook to understand and comply with company procedures, reinforcing that the Complainant had responsibility for adherence to the process in question.

The complainant’s dismissive response, defensive conduct, and pattern of reacting to challenge by threatening to leave contributed to a breakdown in trust.

The respondent operates in a medically regulated manufacturing environment requiring reliability and engagement from all team members. The complainant’s conduct demonstrated that trust had irretrievably broken down.

In these circumstances, a reasonable employer, operating in a regulated manufacturing environment, would be entitled to regard the complainant’s conduct as fundamentally incompatible with continued employment.

The Respondent’s primary position is that no dismissal occurred. If otherwise found, the Complainant was made aware of concerns, he was given an opportunity to respond, he brought the interaction to an end.

Any limitation in the process arose directly from the Complainant’s own actions, which prevented the completion of a formal disciplinary procedure. The Respondent maintains comprehensive written disciplinary procedures and would have followed them in full had the Complainant not departed the workplace before such a process could be initiated.

The respondent’s disciplinary procedures, as set out in the Employee Handbook provide for a structured process including investigation, the possibility of suspension on pay where appropriate, the right to be accompanied, and a right of appeal. These procedures would have been followed in full had the Complainant remained in employment.

The Handbook also makes clear that suspension on full pay may be utilised as part of an investigation process and does not constitute disciplinary action in itself

Any purported retraction was not clear, unconditional, or capable of giving rise to a viable continuation of the employment relationship, particularly in light of the Complainant’s immediate escalation to formal complaint, allegations, and a financial demand. While the matter giving rise to the interaction would have been addressed through the Respondent’s disciplinary procedures, the Complainant’s actions following the interaction prevented any meaningful engagement with that process.

Accordingly, no dismissal occurred within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 and the complaint is not well founded.

Withoutprejudicetotheabove,ifadismissalisfoundtohaveoccurred,the Respondentsubmitsthatsuchdismissalwouldhavebeenjustifiedinallthe circumstances.TheComplainantcommittedaseriousproceduralfailureinaregulated environment. He had clear prior awareness of the importance of compliance, arising fromhis trainingandexperienceinthe role.

While the matter would have been subject to a formal disciplinary process, including investigation, the complainant’s conduct when the matter was raised, together with his subsequent actions, resulted in a breakdown in trust and confidence such as to render the continuation of the employment relationship untenable.

There is some confusion over what exactly happened in the course of the exchanges when it is alleged that the complainant resigned.

Both parties agree that there had been a problem with the complainant’s machine which he had not properly resolved before concluding his shift somewhat early and going home on July 15th. Likewise, it is not in dispute that this had significant adverse operational impacts on the respondent.

It is what happened the following morning that is less clear.

Piecing together the evidence the complainant’s supervisor was sent to speak to him about what exactly had happened following the machine breakdown.

The evidence of the Operations Manager Mr. O’Connell was that this might have resolved the matter had the complainant’s explanation to the supervisor been acceptable, whatever that might have meant specifically, but presumably something a bit more insightful than “I must have forgotten’ when pressed by his supervisor about what happened his machine.

It was on foot of that unsatisfactory, almost dismissive response in the eyes of the respondent, which appeared to lack the necessary degree of insight into the impact of the complainant’s actions that he, Mr. O’Connell, became involved.

The detail of what happened next is contested but it appears that the key interaction was along the lines “If you're not happy with me, I’m leaving.” (the respondent) or “if you don’t want me, I’ll go’ to which he says Mr. O’Connell replied, ‘Go now,’ (the complainant’s version).

In his evidence, Mr. O’Connell specifically denied telling the complainant ‘To go’.

Then there was some caviling over the detail of what happened next; the complainant saying that Mr. O’Connell marched him off the premises taking his key card at the exit. Mr. O’Connell’s telling of it had him more simply following the complainant to the exit from a distance and recovering the access card outside but there is not much to choose between them and there was no independent corroboration of either version.

In both versions it is not in dispute that the complainant left in circumstances where it appeared to the respondent that he had terminated his employment.

This took place on the morning of the 16th.

The complainant then wrote the first of two substantial letters to the respondent at 13.19 hours that afternoon, a matter of a couple of hours later and another at 17.48 asserting that he had been unfairly dismissed and making a number of demands set out in the respondent’s submission, including compensation.

In response to questions seeking clarification of some of the detail in the letters at the hearing it appears these letters were AI generated.

Then, to complete the picture of the day’s events the complainant referred a complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC at 20.10 that same evening. The respondent sees evidence in this of the complainant’s determination to quit his employment.

I will return to the question as to whether, as a matter of law, these events give rise to a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act. But the starting point for that consideration is the status of the complainant’s alleged resignation.

It is quite clear that he was the first to broach the question regarding his continuing in employment.

In either version of the evidence; “If you're not happy with me, I’m leaving.” (the respondent) or “if you don’t want me, I’ll go’ (the complainant) it was the complainant who, for reasons best known to himself, but rather imprudently initiated the possibility of his terminating the employment.

That said, neither of these versions of what was said meets the standard asserted in the respondent’s submission of being an ‘unequivocal’ statement of leaving. Any sentence beginning with the word ‘if’, (as the respondent accepts it began with) is, by definition and in its ordinary meaning not unequivocal. It is conditional on what follows.

I can reach no reliable conclusion on the claim that Mr. O’Connell responded by telling the complainant to ‘go now’ although it seems unlikely. On the other hand, there was no evidence of any attempt at dissuasion, and this is an important element of the matter to which I will return. 

Mr. O’Connell’s evidence to the hearing was that even if the complainant had remained and faced disciplinary action over his actions the termination of his employment would not have been considered as a sanction. In his telling of it the problem was the complainant’s failure to demonstrate any insight into what he had done or its consequences for the company.

That said the respondent did try to ride two horses at the same time, by inferring that the complaint’s actions warranted termination.

The critical question that arises in the case law and the learned literature is whether a resignation has been ‘clear and unambiguous’. There is no impediment to a person quitting their employment and it is not an exceptional event in any way as workers change jobs for all sorts of reasons.

The specific issue arising here with is with a ‘heat of the moment’ resignation, and what space is required to be provided for a ‘cooling off’ or review by the parties of an incident when tempers have cooled.

 In Labour Court Decision Shinkwin & Donna Millett EED044 the Court considered if the complainant’s apparent resignation ever took effect.

“A resignation is a unilateral act which, if expressed in unambiguous and unconditional terms, brings a contract of employment to an end. The contract cannot be reconstructed by the subsequent unilateral withdrawal of the resignation. Where adequate notice is given, the contract is generally terminated in accordance with its terms and since there is no repudiation the acceptance of the resignation by the employer is not required in order to determine the contract”.

In Shinkwin the Labour Court referred to an extract from Redmond on Dismissal Law in Ireland  as follows (paragraph [21.24])

“When unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to an employer, and are so understood by the employer, generally it is safe to conclude that the employee has resigned. However, context is everything. A resignation should not be taken at face value where in the circumstances, there were heated exchanges or where the employee was unwell at the time. The intellectual make up of the employee may also be relevant.”

The Court found that that there are occasions in which an apparently unconditional and unambiguous resignation may be vitiated by the circumstances in which it is proffered. In Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Linehan [1992] IRLR 156, the following passage appears at paragraph 31:-

“If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment, personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (being jostled into a decision) and indeed the intellectual makeup of the individual may be relevant (see Barclay [1983] IRLR 313). These we refer to as “special circumstances”. Where special circumstances arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employers risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the “special circumstances” the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively.”

In Martin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd [1983] IRLR 48 the following finding of the EAT is recited in the headnote:-

“It is a matter of plain common sense, vital to industrial relations, that either an employer or an employee, should be given an opportunity of recanting from words spoken in the heat of the moment. It could not be accepted, as argued by the appellant, that once clear and unambiguous words are used the contract irreversibly comes to an end so that second thoughts make no difference”.

Thus, there are two steps to be considered. The first is whether the employee had made a fully informed decision to leave his job. Where that can be established nothing further arises.

Interestingly, in this case the incident was not one in which there was high emotion or temper, although it would also be difficult to regard it as fully informed. But while there may have been tension between the parties there was no evidence that the exchanges between them were unusually ill tempered. Nonetheless, the evidence in this case  was that the resignation, to put it no more strongly than that, occurred on the ‘spur of the moment’ shifting it out of the ‘clear and unambiguous’ category. And as noted already it was not ‘unequivocal’ as asserted by the respondent.

The second relates to the ‘cooling off’ provision.

This brings one to whether the respondent took any active steps to review the complainant’s decision. The respondent ‘s case in that regard seems to rest on the complainant ‘s follow up later that day and has argued that the vehemence of the two items of correspondence and the WRC referral was evidence of a firm and final decision by the complainant  that he was not for turning.

It has stated that he did not avail of the company grievance procedure.

This is not strictly correct.

The first of his letters on July 16th (at 13.19) opens with the sentence ‘I am writing formally to raise a grievance regarding the matter in which I was dismissed from my position on 16th July 2025.’

He concluded with a request for a ‘formal response’  within seven days and indicated that he remained open to resolving the matter. He may have meant a financial settlement, but the respondent cannot argue that the complainant had not initiated a version of the grievance machinery.

In the event, the respondent did nothing so that any failure to implement the grievance machinery lies with the respondent.

I do not accept either that anything turns on the rather hasty referral to the WRC as the respondent has sought to do. It has suggested that this was further evidence of the complainant’s determination to quit his job. The complainant confirmed to the hearing that he had been very angry when he did this. 

A complaint to the WRC is as easily withdrawn as it is made,  and the fact of making it is not persuasive evidence either way as to the complainant’s intentions. It speaks only to his state of mind, and his anger when he did it and this places it well within the dicta above from Shinkwin.

In my view, there is sufficient evidence to be found in the complainant’s actions later on the day of these events to cast very serious doubt that his decision to quit his employment and his actions were ‘clear and unambiguous’. They carry all the hallmarks of confusion, impetuosity and (by his specific admission in evidence) anger; the very factors the legal authorities have taken into account in considering cases arising in roughly these scenarios.

In fact, while the complainant may have been legally wrong to describe the actions of the company during and immediately after the exchange with Mr O’Connor on the morning of July 16th  as an unfair dismissal, that may arise from the actions or in this case inaction of the company thereafter and crystallise at that later stage.

A contract of employment may not be allowed to simply wither away by inaction on the part of an employer in these circumstances.

Accordingly, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

For clarity, it was not the actions of Mr O’Connell on the day of the altercation with the complainant that triggered the termination, but the subsequent failure of the respondent to react to the complainant’s referral of the matter as a grievance that crystallises it.

In respect of his losses the complainant made a submission after the hearing in which he referred to having made ‘numerous’ attempts to seek employment and to mitigate his losses.

However, the supporting documentation tells a different story.

The complainant’s employment terminated on July 17th, 2025. He did not make any attempt to seek employment until August 20th, although he attributes this delay to stress following the termination, although no medical evidence was offered to support this.

There was only one application in September on the 6th, and he contacted Jobseekers only on October 13th. There was no evidence of another application until the 31st of that month.

There was one application on November 7th and another on the 18th and what he referred to as several others in late November. He was then successful in getting employment and began his new job on December 1st, 2025. There was some other contact inviting the complainant to interviews.

In summary, on the basis of his own submission, this comes to not much more than a half a dozen applications in the period of four and a half months, an average of around one every three weeks.

This comes nowhere close to meeting the requirement to mitigate loss.

He states his earnings for 2024 as €857 per week in 2024 and €925 in 2025 up to the date of his dismissal. He also says that there are continuing losses since he has been re-employed, plus the loss of health insurance. He was unemployed for some eighteen weeks putting his total losses based on the 2025 figures at €16,650. The value of the health insurance was not discernible from the information submitted.

The complainant was unfairly dismissed. Taking into account his failure to adequately mitigate his losses I award him a reduced level of compensation as provided for on the Act in the amount of €7,500.

Complaint CA-00073516 is upheld, and the complainant was unfairly dismissed. I award him €7,500.00 as being just and equitable in the circumstances.

Unfair Dismissal, Mitigation.