Employee was found to have been constructively dismissed where prolonged delays, lack of transparency and procedural unfairness in handling bullying and safeguarding complaints rendered her working environment intolerable, resulting in a €40,000 award.

The Complainant had been employed by the Respondent since September 2009 and resigned in September 2024, claiming constructive dismissal. She asserted that her working conditions became intolerable due to prolonged failures by management and the Board of Management to address bullying and harassment by a colleague and serious child protection concerns she raised in her role as Designated Liaison Person. She maintained that the Respondent allowed the colleague to evade engagement with formal procedures, delayed the investigation for several years, and failed to protect her from ongoing workplace hostility. The Complainant said that she suffered significant stress-related illness, took extended leave and successive career breaks on medical advice, and was repeatedly ignored or dismissed when seeking updates. She argued that the Respondent mishandled the investigation process, denied her fair access to the final report, failed to offer any appeal mechanism, and ultimately left her with no reasonable alternative but to resign. She contended that the cumulative conduct amounted to a repudiation of her contract.

The Respondent rejected the claim and argued that it was fundamentally misconceived. It submitted that the Complainant had not worked for the school for approximately four years prior to her resignation and had already decided, by January 2024, not to return. The Respondent relied on the Complainant’s own correspondence to argue that she delayed resigning solely to secure the investigator’s report, not because of intolerable working conditions. It contended that constructive dismissal requires prompt acceptance of repudiation, which did not occur. The Respondent further submitted that the investigation delay was largely attributable to the independent investigator and the complexity of the process, compounded by repeated complaints and external referrals by the Complainant. It argued that unfair dismissal proceedings were not an appeal mechanism for investigative findings and that the Complainant had pursued an alternative career in psychology, thereby breaking any causal link between the Respondent’s conduct and her resignation.

The Adjudicating Officer accepted that the Complainant had endured a prolonged and deeply unsatisfactory process and that the investigation into her complaints was inordinately delayed. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent failed to manage the process with the urgency, clarity, and transparency required and that the Complainant was repeatedly left without information or meaningful engagement. While acknowledging that the Complainant had been absent on career breaks for an extended period and had pursued alternative employment, the Adjudicator concluded that the cumulative effect of the Respondent’s actions and omissions rendered the working environment intolerable. The failure to furnish the investigation report in a timely manner, the absence of procedural fairness, and the lack of an appeal mechanism were particularly significant. The Adjudicator found that the Complainant acted reasonably in resigning and that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The complaint was therefore well founded and €40,000 awarded.

Employers should:                

•  Recognise that prolonged delay in handling grievances, particularly those involving bullying, harassment, or safeguarding concerns, can itself constitute a serious breach of duty. Even where an investigation is outsourced, the employer retains responsibility for oversight, timelines, and communication.   
   
  
• Note that complaints are entitled to timely updates, access to investigation outcomes, and clear information about next steps, including any appeal rights. Employers should avoid informal workarounds or inconsistent explanations, as these undermine trust and can be interpreted as evasive or dismissive. Data protection concerns must be handled proportionately and should not be used to obstruct access to reports. 
   
  
• Do not assume that extended leave or alternative employment automatically defeats a constructive dismissal claim. Tribunals will assess the totality of circumstances and the reasonableness of the employee’s response.

The full case can be found here.