The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a printer on the 1st of October 2012 as a full-time, permanent member of staff. The Complaint resigned from his employment in August 2020. The exact date of termination was an issue that was in dispute between the parties.

The Complainant alleged he had been constructively dismissed on the 28th of August 2020. In particular, the Complainant alleged that he was subjected to an unfair disciplinary process, and that the Respondent refused to process a grievance in relation to the same at the Complainant’s request. However, the Respondent denied the allegation put forward by the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that they were willing to arrange a grievance meeting in relation to the Complainant’s concerns, but that the Complainant elected to resign without engaging with the Respondent.

On the 16th March 2020, the Complainant was laid off as a result of the restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.  Just prior to the lockdown announcement, the Respondent received an order that it was obligated to complete. The Managing Director requested the Complainant attend work and complete this order. In the course of this conversation, the parties agreed the Complainant would receive “time in lieu” for these hours and the Complainant would be the only person in the print department.

On attending the workplace, the Complainant discovered a significant amount of work to be completed and a number of other employees were on the premises. The Complainant was not provided with protective equipment, nor were any other protective measures in place. The Complainant also requested to be reimbursed for his travel expenses and paid in cash for the day of work. The Complainant sought out the Managing Director of the Respondent to discuss these matters. The Complainant submitted the Respondent was dismissive of the Complainant’s concerns and a verbal disagreement ensued whereby the Complainant stated he believed he had been misled by the Respondent.

The Complainant remained on lay-off and returned to work on the 1st of July 2020. On his return, the Complainant was invited to a meeting. He was not aware of the purpose of this meeting in advance, but it later transpired it was a hybrid investigation / disciplinary meeting. He was not given sight of the complaint, not given any right of representation and he was not provided with adequate notice of the same.  Following the meeting, the Complainant received correspondence to the effect that he was to receive a “written warning” in relation to his conduct the previous March. The Complainant was not informed how long this sanction would remain on file and was not advised of any right to appeal the sanction.

On receipt of this sanction, the Complainant became extremely concerned regarding the manner in which the Respondent was conducting itself and commenced a period of certified sick leave. The Complainant instructed his solicitor to correspond with the Respondent on his behalf.  The Complainant requested an appeal of the disciplinary sanction and raised a number of grievances regarding the Respondent’s recent activities.

The Complaint submitted that the Respondent demonstrated no willingness to progress his grievance, or to resile from the fundamentally flawed disciplinary process. Therefore, the Complainant felt he had no option but to resign.

The Respondent accepted the disciplinary process had some shortcomings. The Respondent’s representative submitted the Complainant was not constructively dismissed from his role. The Respondent submitted the Complainant had not demonstrated any unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted the Complainant’s failure to engage with the grievance procedure was fatal to the present complaint.

The Adjudication Officer, having reviewed correspondence in detail, found certain exchanges between the Respondent and the Complainant demonstrated the Complainant was willing to engage with the Respondent regarding the appeal of the disciplinary sanction and the prospective grievance. The importance of this correspondence was the Complainant felt that he, at that point, had a valid complaint for constructive dismissal but was willing to remain in employment in order to potentially rectify the issues by way of the internal procedures.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the regarding the disciplinary process, it was apparent it was conducted in breach of the Complainant right to fair procedures. The Complainant was not provided with advance notification of the allegations against him, he was not provided with a right of representation, and he was not provided with statements of any witnesses to the incident in question.

Having regarding the totality of the evidence presented, the Adjudication Officer found the Complainant was constructively dismissed and awarded the Complainant the sum of €6,000 in compensation.

Guidance for Employers:   

In a potential case of Constructive Dismissal, the correct approach to be taken by an adjudicator is:

This case also demonstrates the importance of implementing an equitable, fair and impartial Grievance Procedure so to allow for a legitimate outcome for the parties: 
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/october/adj-00032161.html