This case surrounded the issue of constructive dismissal. The claimant gave evidence that during his time with the company he had been engaged in different areas of the business but his role had only entailed sales duties prior to his employment being terminated. 

There was a change in managing director. However, there was confusion as to who assumed this position. The claimant reported to GF, who provided the claimant with specific instructions to cover the south and south-east areas of the country, with a list of customers.

The claimant was of the opinion that the management wanted the claimant out of the company as they no longer provided the claimant with the opportunity to have input into the company. 

The claimant met with CMC at which the respondent claimed that the sales he had achieved were not to the company’s satisfaction. Subsequently, the claimant was issued with a set of sales targets for both existing and new business. Under this new target the claimant was now being asked to achieve an increase in sales of 10%; the claimant was of the opinion that this was unachievable. 

The only person whom the claimant could bring his grievance to was CMC and this was the person the claimant had a grievance with. The claimant consequently asked his grievance to be referred to the Labour Relations Commission. The respondent was of the opinion that this was an internal matter and therefore ignored this request.

The claimant did not want to leave the company but the situation he found himself in meant that he felt he had no option but to walk away from the company. The claimant felt demeaned by the company. The claimant was certified unfit for work and proposed that his employment should end. The respondent had been unaware that the claimant had suffered from work-related stress. When the claimant had handed in his resignation the respondent wrote to ask the claimant to re-consider his position. The claimant was unsuccessful in securing an alternative position despite being interviewed for ten different positions. The claimant subsequently set up his own small coffee business. 

The tribunal held that the respondent had appeared to have set unrealistic targets for the claimant to achieve. The tribunal also noted how the respondent had failed to consult with the claimant regarding the setting of sales targets, the tribunal was of the opinion that this was an approach taken by the respondent in an attempt to freeze the claimant out of the company. Consequently the tribunal awarded the claimant €70, 000 by way of compensation.

To read the full decision: 
http://bit.ly/1rd7Fva