This case involved a claim of constructive dismissal. The complainant asserted that the respondent had conducted its affairs with her in such an unreasonable manner that she could not be expected to put up with it any longer. The complainant had originally arranged to take four days annual leave and had sought permission to take an additional day. She offered to make up the time but her manager refused on the basis that this would result in the warehouse being short staffed and she was needed to meet work demands.

The complainant was upset by this and felt she was being penalised. She also made a comment to the effect that she was paying the price for being honest and could have called in sick instead. An exchange followed which resulted in the complainant being called in to a meeting  the next day and she was issued with an informal warning by the Manager. The day after the meeting the complainant was called into another meeting, this time with the Managing Director and the Financial Controller. She was accompanied by a fellow employee but the Managing Director sent the complainant's colleague back to work on the basis that the meeting was informal. In this meeting the Managing Director advised the complainant that he was not happy with her behaviour and that the matter was not finished as the complainant had stormed out of the meeting the day before. The complainant indicated that she felt bullied and the meeting ended with the Managing Director advising the complainant that he intended to refer the matter to his HR advisors and would revert to her in due course.

Later that morning the complainant was furnished with a copy of the bullying procedures in place and advised that any unauthorised absence would be dealt with under the disciplinary procedures. The Operations Manager subsequently wrote to the complainant setting out three matters that she was required to address and was advised that she could be accompanied to the meeting to discuss those complaints. The letter also advised that failure to follow reasonable management instruction may be deemed gross misconduct which could lead to summary termination of employment. The complainant responded that she would attend for fear of the consequences of not attending but stated that she had understood that the original meeting with her Manager had ended the matter and that the recent letter had caused her enormous stress.

The meeting took place and the complainant was issued with a written warning to remain on her file for twelve months. The complainant submitted an appeal against the formal warning but then was absent through illness for a period of time. The respondent wrote to the complainant noting receipt of the appeal and stated that they would arrange an appeal hearing when she resumed work. They also noted that the complainant had made a number of complaints and grievances and offered her a copy of the grievance procedure so she could formally pursue them if she desired. During the complainant's period of sick leave the respondent company suffered a significant downturn in business resulting in the complainant's hours being reduced. However, two days after the complainant's return to work she was laid off along with two other members of staff. Following a review of the disciplinary process the warning on the complainant's file was rescinded. Arising from the layoff the complainant attended at the Social Welfare Office to claim Job Seeker's Allowance. She was asked for her P45 certificate which she then requested from the respondent. The respondent responded that she had not been dismissed and instead she had been placed on temporary lay-off. Subsequently, the complainant wrote to the respondent listing her grievances and stating that she felt she had been victimised by the respondent. The complainant was unable to attend the meeting arranged to hear her grievances and at the complainant's request the meeting was rearranged to a venue offsite, namely a coffee shop.

In advance of the meeting the complainant advised the respondent that her representative was unwell and they could not attend. At this point the complainant was being represented by the Citizens Information Service who on two occasions wrote to the respondent to arrange a meeting but both letters went unanswered. The respondent then wrote to the complainant proposing a meeting but due to a mistake by the courier company this was not delivered to the complainant until five hours after the complainant resigned. The respondent then wrote to the complainant acknowledging receipt of her resignation and enclosed her P45. This culminated in the complainant making a claim of constructive dismissal on foot of the events. The complainant alleged that her treatment by the respondent company was so oppressive that she could not be expected to tolerate it a moment longer.

The Court disagreed with the complainant and found that there were tensions in the employment relationship but that these were being worked through by the respondent, albeit imperfectly. The Court felt that the complainant had significantly contributed to the relationship deteriorating by way of her conduct in the meeting with the Managing Director. In addition, the Court stated that when the respondent experienced a downturn in business they had made an honest effort to retain staff with the optimum range of skills to take the company through the difficulties. The Court held that the misunderstanding in relation to the lay-off was not caused by the respondent and they had made it very clear that the complainant's employment had not been terminated. The Court found that the respondent's behaviour was procedurally imperfect but at no stage oppressive, and there was no breach of a fundamental provision of the contract. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/September/UDD1849.html