WRC found that CEO was constructively dismissed after being excluded from his role through a fundamental breach of trust and fair procedures and awarded him €420,172.

The Complainant had been employed as CEO/CTO since October 2019 under a contract providing for six months’ notice. In December 2024, the Respondent abruptly removed his access to critical systems, including SharePoint and project management platforms, without explanation or process. His email and communications were redirected and monitored without his knowledge, and allegations of misconduct were referenced internally but never put to him. He was excluded from operational functions and denied the tools necessary to perform his role. No investigation, disciplinary process, or opportunity to respond was provided. At the same time, all directors except the chairman resigned, further destabilising governance. The Complainant, while resigning as a director, maintained his employment. Through solicitors, he asserted constructive dismissal, arguing that the Respondent’s conduct fundamentally breached trust and confidence and effectively excluded him from his role, leaving him with no reasonable alternative but to treat the contract as terminated.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not present oral evidence to challenge the Complainant’s account. Through correspondence, however, the Respondent denied that a constructive dismissal had occurred. It contended that the Complainant had voluntarily resigned and sought to characterise his solicitor’s letter of December 2024 as a resignation notice. The Respondent relied on the contractual provision allowing for six months’ notice and purported to place the Complainant on garden leave, asserting a termination date of June 2025. It did not provide any substantive explanation for the removal of system access, monitoring of communications, or the alleged misconduct referenced internally. Nor did it demonstrate that any disciplinary or investigative procedures had been followed. The Respondent’s position effectively maintained that the employment relationship remained governed by the contract despite the actions taken, and that the Complainant’s departure arose from his own decision rather than any repudiatory conduct on its part.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent’s actions amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and satisfied both the contractual and reasonableness tests for constructive dismissal. The removal of all system access, monitoring of communications, and exclusion from the workplace without any process deprived the Complainant of the ability to perform his role and fundamentally undermined trust and confidence. No allegations were formally put to him, and no procedures were followed. For a CEO, such exclusion was equivalent to termination in substance. The Adjudicator also found that it was objectively reasonable for the Complainant to resign, as no reasonable employee could be expected to continue under such conditions. The Respondent’s later attempt to reframe the situation as a resignation did not cure the breach. Accordingly, the Complainant was found to have been constructively dismissed and was awarded compensation of €420,172, representing his full financial loss.

Employers should:

• Ensure that any action affecting an employee’s role is grounded in fair procedures. Sudden removal of access, monitoring of communications, or exclusion from duties without explanation will almost invariably be viewed as a breach of trust and confidence.  
   
  
• Procedural fairness is critical. Allegations must be clearly put to the employee, who must be given an opportunity to respond. Investigations should be transparent, proportionate, and documented. Employers should avoid taking irreversible or punitive steps before completing a fair process.  
   
  
• Finally, contractual rights such as garden leave or notice provisions cannot be used retrospectively to justify earlier breaches. Employers should act consistently with the contract from the outset. Where senior employees are involved, additional care is required due to the scale of responsibility and impact.

The full case can be found here.