Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Receptionist, Ms. A

A Medical Practice

Representatives

Shane Mc Donald

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-00077702-001

18/11/2025

By complaint form dated 18 November 2025, the Complainant submitted a claim of constructive dismissal under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as well as a complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The complainant submits that she was left with no option but to resign her employment on 10 November 2025 alleging that the reason for same was due to the respondent’s failure to honour a decision of the WRC which issued on 30th September 2025.

The complainant submits that the respondent failed to comply with the decision and recommendation issued by the Adjudication Officer on 30/09/2025 Following a WRC hearing on 19/08/2025.

The complainant submits that the AO’s decision awarded compensation of €800 as equitable redress and the recommendation recommended payment of €1,500 in recognition of the respondent's failure to have adequate procedures in place.

According to the complainant, neither amount was paid following the decision.

The complainant submits that she contacted the Enforcement section of the WRC seeking enforcement of the decision and a response dated 10/11/2025 advised that the complainant did not meet the criteria for enforcement action and would need to seek a court order personally.

The complainant submits that she waited the statutory period to determine whether the respondent would appeal to the Labour Court. No appeal was lodged and on 26/11/2025 (57 days after the WRC decision), the complainant applied for a court order to enforce the award of €800.   A court hearing date was subsequently set for 20/02/2026.

The complainant submits that during this period the respondent made no attempt to comply with the Adjudication Officer's decision.

The complainant submits that the court order documentation was delivered on 27/11/2025 and later that same day, the complainant received an email from the respondent containing a payslip dated 14/11/2025 and a breakdown of wages allegedly due.

The complainant submits that the email itself contained no message and upon checking her bank account, the complainant found that the €800 compensation had been paid and outstanding salary payments had also been lodged.

The complainant contends that the respondent only made payment after becoming aware that court enforcement proceedings had been initiated and submits that the respondent failed to comply voluntarily within the 56-day period following the Adjudication Officer's decision.

The complainant submits that the respondent's actions show deliberate disregard and a lack of respect toward her as an employee.

The complainant submits that the respondents’ actions in this regard placed Emotional, Financial and Administrative burden on her which she submits led to her resignation and constructive dismissal claim.

The complainant submits that the respondent engaged in conduct that caused her unnecessary stress and amounted to harassment.

The respondent submits that the Complainant worked for the Respondent from October 2021 until her resignation on 10 November 2025.

The respondent submits that the Complainant has previously brought two employment-related complaints before the WRC which were heard on 19 August 2025.

The first claim brought under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Commission awarded €800 compensation.

In relation to the second claim brought under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Commission recommended that the Respondent pay the Complainant €1,500. Both decisions are dated 30 September 2025.

The respondent submits that the Complainant resigned by letter dated 10 November 2025 having been on sick leave since 1 January 2025, she did not return to work after the Commission’s decisions.

The respondent submits that the resignation letter states that the complainant resigned because the Respondent failed to honour the Commission’s decision.  The Respondent’s solicitors by letter dated 5 December 2025 advised that the Respondent would not appeal the decision and was awaiting confirmation of whether the Complainant would appeal within the permitted period.

The respondent submits that as no appeal was lodged, the Respondent would arrange payment of the compensation.

The appeal period is 42 days, that period expired on 11 November 2026 and the award became enforceable after 56 days, on 26 November 2026.

The respondent submits that on 26 November 2025, the Complainant issued a Notice of Motion in Dublin Metropolitan District Court to enforce the WRC decision.  The application was returnable on 20 February 2026.

The respondent submits that on the 57th day i.e. on 27th of November 2025, the Respondent paid the Complainant €800 by bank transfer and €1,314.89 for two weeks’ annual leave following her resignation.

The Respondent’s solicitors notified the Complainant of both payments by letter dated 5 December 2025.

At the District Court hearing on 20 February 2026, the Court was informed that the €800 compensation had been paid and the Court dismissed the application without an order as to costs.

The respondent submits that although the Commission’s recommendation was not legally binding, the Respondent paid the Complainant €1,500 on or about 3 March 2026.

The Complainant initiated this matter by Complaint Form dated 14 November 2025.

Section 1(b) of the Act defines a constructive dismissal as: -

“(b) 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”.

Section 6(1) of the Act states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Significant legal precedent exists which establishes that, for a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, it has to satisfy either one or a combination of both of the following “tests.”

There are two sets of circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal.  The law is well settled here, and these tests are known as the “contract” test and the “reasonableness” test.  The first test, that of breach of contract, requires that the contract of employment has to have been breached to such a degree that the employee is left with no option but to resign.  It is now generally understood that an employee must also act reasonably in terminating their employment and that resignation must not be the first option taken by the employee. 

The reasonableness test requires that the employee must satisfactorily demonstrate that the employer behaved or acted in a manner, which was so unreasonable as to make it impossible for the employee to continue in the employment.  The employee must show that his behaviour/action in resigning was reasonable in all the circumstances. 

In Berber v. Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 ELR, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“There is implied in a contract of employment a mutual obligation that the employer and the employee will not without reasonable and proper cause conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between them.  The term is implied by law and is incident to all contracts of employment unless expressly excluded.  The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.”

In the English case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332 Denning J stated:

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

The complainant in this case submits that she was left with no option but to resign her employment because the Respondent failed to honour the Commission’s decision in respect of a previous complaint brought by the complainant to the WRC in respect of which a decision had issued on 30th of September 2025.

The complainant advised the hearing that the decision issued on 30th of September 2025 and awarded her €800 in compensation.  The complainant advised the hearing that the IR recommendation in a related matter also issued that date and awarded her a sum of€1,500.  The complainant advised the hearing that the respondent did not pay the compensation awarded or recommended and so she was left with no option but to resign her employment which she did on the 10th of November 2025.   The complainant stated that she had initiated Court proceedings on 26th of November 2025 in an attempt to have the compensation award enforced.

The complainant stated that on 26/11/2025 (57 days after the WRC decision), she applied for a court order to enforce the award of €800, and a court hearing date was later set for 20/02/2026.

The complainant submits that the court order documentation was delivered to the respondent on 27/11/2025 and later that same day, the complainant had received an email from the respondent containing a payslip dated 14/11/2025 and a breakdown of wages allegedly due to her.

The complainant stated that the email itself was blank but upon checking her bank account, she discovered that the €800 compensation had been lodged to her account as well as outstanding salary payments.

The complainant at the hearing stated that the respondent only made payment after becoming aware that court enforcement proceedings had been initiated by her but that the respondent had refused to comply voluntarily within the 56-day period following the Adjudication Officer's decision.

The respondent advised the hearing that it had waited for the 42-day appeal period as it was not aware whether or not the complainant herself was going to appeal the decision of the AO.  The respondent advised the hearing that the 42-day period expired on 11 November 2026 and that the award became enforceable two weeks later i.e. after 56 days, on 26 November 2026.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant on 26 November 2025, had sought a Court Order to enforce the decision before the 56 days had fully elapsed.

The respondent advised the hearing that it had paid the Complainant the €800 on the 57th day i.e. on the 27th of November 2025 as well as €1,314.89 in respect of two weeks’ annual leave following her resignation and the complainant was issue with a payslip in this regard.

The respondent advised the hearing that its solicitors notified the Complainant of both payments by letter dated 5 December 2025.

The respondent advised the hearing that the District Court hearing took place on 20 February 2026, and the Court was informed that the €800 compensation had been paid and the Court dismissed the application.     

The respondent further advised the hearing that it had later paid the Complainant the €1,500 arising from the Commission’s recommendation even though same was not legally binding.

The complainant advised the hearing that the District Court had told her that it was a matter for the WRC. The respondents legal rep at the hearing denied that this was what was said in Court.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had felt she had no option but to resign on the 10th of November 2025 as the respondent had not honoured the WRC decision by that time.  The complainant stated that it was only after she initiated Court action that the respondent paid the compensation awarded.  The respondent advised the hearing that it had paid the compensation once it was clear that the complainant was not going to appeal the decision and once the period for enforcement of the decision had elapsed which occurred on 26th of November 2025 and the respondent paid the award on the next day the 27th of November 2025.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had not returned to work and had not sought to return to work since the last hearing.  The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had been out on sick leave since 1 January 2025 and had not come back to work.  The respondent advised the hearing that it was given no opportunity to address any issue, or no grievance or issue was raised by the complainant in that time.

The complainant advised the hearing that she felt she could not return to work and had no option but to resign as she alleged that the respondent witness Mr. S at the last WRC hearing had stated that he would not take her back.   The respondent at the hearing denied that this was said, and the respondent witness Mr. S advised the hearing that he had not said this.  I note that the decision of the AO in the previous case does not make any reference to this having been said at the hearing of the claim.   The respondent advised the hearing that if such a statement had been made, which is denied, the complainant had made no attempt to raise this or to clarify it with the respondent before taking the decision to resign her employment.   I note that the complainant has asserted that this comment was made at the hearing of the last case which took place on 19th of August 2025 but is asserting that this was the reason for her resignation on 10th of November 2025 almost three months later.

In considering this matter I note that the complainant in her claim form and in submissions to the WRC had clearly stated that she had no option but to resign after the respondent had failed to pay the monies requested by the AO and in her resignation, letter stated that her resignation was necessary due to the respondents continued failure to honour the terms of legally binding recommendations issued by the Workplace Relations Commission. In considering this matter I note that the complainant resigned her employment before the 42-appeal period had elapsed and I also note that the respondent has paid the €800 as well as the €1,500 arising from the decision and the recommendation.    I also note that in the period prior to her resignation the complainant did not return to work and did not seek to return to work.  I note the complainant assertion that Mr. S had said he would not take her back, but this was never raised with the respondent or with the WRC until the hearing of this matter and that there was a three-month period between what was allegedly said by Mr. S and the complainants resignation date.  I also note that no other grievance was raised with the respondent prior to the complainant’s resignation.

In considering this matter I note that no evidence has been presented that indicates that the respondent attempted to repudiate a term of the complainant’s contract.   I am also mindful of the decision in Conway v Ulster Bank, which sets out that the notion of reasonableness goes both ways and an employee must give their employer an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have.  

Accordingly, having considered the totality of the evidence adduced and the prevailing law and precedent, I am satisfied that the complainant in this case was not constructively dismissed, and I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I am satisfied that the complainant in this case was not constructively dismissed and accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.