eBay employee quit after being written up for failing to explain 4 minutes of inactivity on his computer to his manager's satisfaction has lost his claim for constructive dismissal in the WRC.

The Complainant, a long-serving eBay customer support agent, claimed constructive dismissal after receiving a written warning for four minutes of unexplained inactivity at work. He argued the reprimand was unreasonable given personal tragedies at the time, including the death of a close friend. He believed the disciplinary action stemmed from grievances he had raised against two managers. He also referenced informal counselling for lateness, which he attributed to unreliable public transport. Feeling unfairly targeted, he resigned on 5 March 2024, the day the warning was upheld, stating he could not tolerate the work environment any longer.

The Respondent defended the claim, stating the warning was issued for legitimate performance concerns, specifically failure to explain inactivity beyond 60 seconds, which they considered work avoidance. His manager said he ignored opportunities to explain the delay and failed to use repeated scheduled time for clarification. The Respondent submitted he had eight instances of lateness and argued he did not engage with internal grievance procedures before resigning. The disciplinary action, including the written warning, was upheld through a formal appeal. The Respondent maintained he was not constructively dismissed and had alternatives to resignation.

The Adjudicating Officer dismissed the complaint of constructive dismissal; whilst she acknowledged the Complainant’s personal difficulties, they found that the written warning was a proportionate response to a genuine work issue - particularly given the unexplained four-minute inactivity. The Adjudicator noted he had not submitted a grievance before resigning and concluded that resignation was not his only option. They found no evidence of targeted behaviour or unfair treatment, stating that the manager was performing her duties appropriately. Further, failure to follow internal procedures or raise the issue formally weakened the claim.

• This case underscores the importance of clear performance standards and consistent application of disciplinary procedures. Employers should ensure that expectations are well-documented and explained to all staff. Where monitoring tools like screen recordings are used, policies should clarify how data will be assessed and what constitutes a breach. However, procedural fairness must always accompany performance management.  
  
• Employees should be given reasonable opportunity to explain alleged misconduct, and managers must document all interactions. If personal difficulties are cited, employers should respond while maintaining professional standards (e.g., offering support services or accommodations where possible). Moreover, before imposing disciplinary sanctions, ensure that employees are aware of their right to raise grievances. This not only protects compliance but may also resolve misunderstandings early on.  
  
• Finally, employers should train managers in handling sensitive issues fairly and consistently. Constructive dismissal claims can often be avoided when employees feel heard and treated equitably. A robust grievance process allows concerns to be addressed internally before reaching the point of resignation. Employers should try foster a culture of openness and procedural fairness to maintain morale and mitigate risk.

The full case can be found here:
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/may/adj-00053831.html