Background: 
The Complainant began working as a Group Commercial Accountant for the Respondent company in May 2019. In April 2023, she was suspended after sending an email mentioning that she had discussed a tender with a family member, who indicated that the Respondent was a preferred contractor. The suspension was based on allegations of breaching the company’s anti-bribery policy, disclosing confidential information, and potentially bringing the company into disrepute. Despite the client having no issue with the email, the Respondent maintained the suspension. Under significant pressure, the Complainant took sick leave and filed a grievance in July 2023. The Respondent extended her unpaid leave and delayed addressing the grievance, citing the need for medical confirmation. Frustrated by the lack of resolution and the Respondent's handling of her situation, she resigned approximately five weeks later. The Respondent only acknowledged her grievance after her resignation, leaving her uncertain about the fairness of any potential hearing.

According to the Respondent, the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent’s Directors that potentially breached the company's Anti-Bribery and Corruption policy, her duty of confidentiality, and her terms of employment, risking the company’s reputation. As a result, she was suspended pending investigation. Although the client involved confirmed no wrongdoing on the Complainant’s part, the Respondent proceeded with disciplinary measures due to concerns about her judgment. The investigation meeting was repeatedly postponed due to the Complainant's illness, with her eventually taking extended sick leave due to work-related stress. She submitted a formal grievance at the end of July 2023, which could not be addressed until she was medically fit. Despite efforts by the Respondent to manage the grievance process and provide accommodations, the Complainant resigned on August 21, 2023, citing dissatisfaction with the Respondent's actions and indicating her intent to pursue claims for constructive dismissal.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer found the case focused on whether her resignation met the criteria for constructive dismissal under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and relevant case law where the Complainant was suspended on April 5, 2023. Although the suspension was found to be unreasonable, the Respondent quickly moved to investigate, rescheduling meetings at the Complainant's request. However, she went on sick leave from April 18, 2023, and refused to engage with the Respondent’s Occupational Health Advisor or attend scheduled reviews, which the decision-maker found unreasonable. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a grievance on July 28, 2023, but the Respondent reasonably postponed the process until she was medically fit to participate. Despite the Respondent's efforts to resolve the issue, including offering her time to reconsider her resignation, the Complainant resigned on August 21, 2023, without exhausting the grievance process. It was held that while the suspension was initially unfair, the Complainant’s subsequent actions were unreasonable, and thus her resignation did not constitute constructive dismissal.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
Employers should:

• Ensure suspensions are justified with clear, documented evidence to avoid claims of unfair treatment.
• Address grievances promptly and transparently, even if the employee is on sick leave.
• Maintain clear communication and timelines to prevent misunderstandings.
• Offer reasonable accommodations, such as time for employees to seek advice or attend meetings, to demonstrate fairness.
• Encourage employees to exhaust internal grievance procedures before considering resignation to help prevent claims of constructive dismissal.

The full case can be found here: 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/july/adj-00048216.html