Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.
Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.
Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as an account manager in digital sales from 23 August 2021, with responsibility for the DACH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) region. She was initially engaged as temporary cover for the sick leave of another employee of the Respondent. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was overzealous in their control and management, requiring extensive meetings and checks on her product knowledge and sales pitches. The Complainant said her performance compared favourably to her colleagues, but despite this her probation was extended twice, first in February 2022 and then again in May 2022. After applying for other roles within the Respondent company, the Complainant resigned her employment on 14 June 2022. After this resignation, the Complainant alleged her resignation was a constructive dismissal caused by the unbearable actions of the Respondent. Because the Complainant had been in employment for less than a year, she could not pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, and so brought this case under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Respondent rejected the allegations made, saying it did not act improperly in any way. They also alleged the Complainant did not raise these matters to their attention, either in the course of her employment and even in her communications after her resignation.
Outcome:
The Adjudication Officer was not satisfied the Complainant had no alternative other than to tender her resignation. In order to qualify for even the discretionary relief available as a recommendation from an Adjudication Officer, the Complainant had an obligation to raise her unhappiness and concerns to her employer prior to making a complaint, and the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant failed to do so, only raising her complaint nearly a year after her resignation. Therefore, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had not made out a case of constructive dismissal and declined to make a recommendation in the dispute.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
Employers can successfully and rigorously manage their employees, especially during their probationary period, so long as they provide an effective method for raising grievances about these processes internally.
The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/january/adj-49297.html
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
