Complaint failed because the employee had resigned rather than been dismissed and had not actively participated in the WRC process or completed the internal grievance procedure.

The Complainant stated that she had been employed as a Case Manager from January 2025 until early June 2025. She asserted that she had been dismissed and brought a complaint to the WRC on that basis. She indicated that she had experienced workplace difficulties arising from an incident involving a colleague’s outburst and subsequent tensions regarding a return to the office. The Complainant reported that she had been on sick leave for two weeks and linked this absence to the workplace dispute. She referenced a grievance outcome dated May 2025, suggesting dissatisfaction with how her concerns were handled internally. She sought re-engagement in her former role as a remedy. However, her written complaint was brief and lacked detailed elaboration.

The Respondent, a charity organisation, denied that any dismissal had occurred. It confirmed that the Complainant commenced employment in January 2025 on a part-time basis. They outlined that a workplace disagreement arose in March 2025 and that informal attempts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. A formal internal investigation was then conducted (culminating in a report issued in early May 2025) which included findings and proposed next steps. The Complainant exercised her right of appeal and attended an appeal hearing in July 2025, accompanied by a manager. The appeal outcome upheld the original findings. The Respondent stated that during a period of sick leave, the Complainant submitted written notice of resignation, thanking the organisation and confirming her intention to end her employment. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant voluntarily resigned and was not dismissed.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant failed to substantively prosecute her claim. Despite multiple invitations to submit evidence and attend the hearing, she neither engaged with the process nor provided justification for her absence. This non-participation was deemed unreasonable, particularly given the efforts made to facilitate her involvement. The Adjudicator accepted the Respondent’s detailed account, which demonstrated adherence to internal grievance and appeal procedures. It was noted that the Complainant had initiated but not completed the internal process before referring the matter to the WRC. Crucially, evidence showed that the Complainant resigned after lodging her complaint, undermining her assertion of dismissal. The Adjudicator concluded that no dismissal had occurred and that the employment relationship ended through resignation. Accordingly, the claim lacked merit. The decision emphasised the necessity of active participation and procedural completion in dispute resolution processes.

Employers should:

• Ensure that all workplace disputes are managed through structured, well-documented internal procedures. This includes maintaining clear grievance and disciplinary frameworks, issuing written outcomes, and preserving records of all interactions.  
  
• Allow employees full access to internal appeal mechanisms and to encourage their completion before external escalation. Employers should communicate clearly that internal processes must be exhausted prior to referral to external bodies.  
  
• Prepare thoroughly for hearings, even where the opposing party appears disengaged. This case highlights that adjudicators place weight on preparedness and adherence to fair process.              
  

The full case can be found here.