Complainant: Máiréad Hanlon

Respondent: North Kerry Day Care Centre Limited Trading As Ard Cúrum

A “reasonable employer” should seek clarification before accepting a resignation.

The Complainant stated that her role primarily involved working outdoors, visiting social and day care centres across Kerry. However, in January 2021, the Respondent instructed her to report to work at the Fuschia Centre, which she believed constituted an unauthorised change to her terms and conditions of employment. She claimed this caused her significant stress, leading to her being signed off sick. She subsequently lodged a complaint with the WRC under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, asserting that her contract had been altered without consent and without proper notification. At the WRC hearing in October 2023, she stated that she did not intend to return to work. Two days later, the Respondent wrote to her, accepting what they termed her “resignation”. When she clarified, later that week, and in further correspondence, that she had not resigned, the Respondent refused to engage and dismissed any further communication.

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant had stated under oath at a WRC hearing that she did not intend to return to her employment. They claimed that they waited to see if she would change her position, but after receiving no further communication from her, they wrote to her, accepting what they viewed as her resignation. The Respondent stated that the Complainant later reiterated in correspondence that she intended to resign but would not put it in writing until it suited her. Given her lack of engagement and clear indication that she would not return to work, the Respondent maintained that they were entitled to conclude that she had abandoned her employment.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. While she had indicated at a WRC hearing that she intended to resign at an unspecified future date, she never formally resigned. Therefore, a “reasonable employer” would have sought clarification before accepting a resignation. Instead, the Respondent acted unreasonably, writing to the Complainant to accept her "resignation" without confirming her intent. When she challenged this, and in further correspondence, the Respondent refused to engage. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent terminated the employment and that their conduct was wholly unreasonable. The Complainant did not contribute to her dismissal, but she also provided little evidence of mitigating her financial loss. Given the Respondent’s actions and the lack of mitigation efforts, the Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €6,500 in compensation instead of reinstatement.

Employers should:

1. Employers should always seek written confirmation before accepting a resignation. If an employee verbally indicates an intention to resign, follow up formally to confirm their decision. Acting prematurely, as in this case, can lead to unfair dismissal claims. A reasonable cooling-off period and proper communication can prevent costly disputes.
   
   
2. Try and co-actively engage with employees who dispute their resignation. Ignoring correspondence or refusing to clarify an employee’s status can be seen as an unjustified termination. Dismissals must always follow fair procedures, including discussions, written documentation, and an opportunity for the employee to respond before making final decisions.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/february/adj-00050905.html