In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Darryl Scales v Ennistymon Parish...

In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Darryl Scales v Ennistymon Parish & Community Group ADJ-00047886, the Complainant alleged he was unfairly dismissed under section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) while the Respondent alleged the Complainant had resigned.

Facts:

The dispute regarding whether the Complainant was dismissed or resigned revolved around a meeting of 4th August 2023, between the Complainant and his supervisor.

It appears there was no dispute that on Friday 4 August 2023, the Complainant turned up unannounced on his day off in the office of his supervisor. He appeared to be dissatisfied with the way an investigation into a particular workplace incident was being carried out.

There was no dispute that at the said meeting the Complainant threw his key back to his supervisor. It appears that, when asked by his supervisor if he was coming back to work on the next morning, the Complainant’s reply was to the effect that he was not, why would he, and that he was leaving. It seems that the parties’ interpretation of the Complainant’s response was completely different. There was no dispute that the Complainant did not turn up for work on Saturday 5th August and Sunday 6th August 2023. The Complainant did not contact the Respondent at all to explain his non-attendance. The Complainant, at the adjudication hearing asserted that he declined to work but he did not resign. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Complainant resigned his position.

Decision: Adjudicator Ewa Sobanska held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. She found that even if she were to accept the Respondent’s position that its understanding was that the Complainant resigned his position, legal precedent cautioned against ‘heat of the moment’ resignations. The Adjudicator stated that best practise provides an employee is allowed to come back to at least discuss the case when tempers are cooled. She referred to the Labour Court decision of Shinkwin v Donna Millett EED044 and various other authorities in support of this position.

The award in this case was low at €990 but this was linked to the fact that the Complainant was deemed not to have met the required standard in terms of his efforts to mitigate his loss (i.e. find alternative employment). The Complainant had taken on a full-time course and so he was unavailable for work. If the Complainant had been deemed to have met the necessary standard in terms of efforts to mitigate his loss the award would likely have been higher.

Takeaway for Employers:

Employers are advised to be cautious of accepting ‘heat of the moment’ resignations at face value. Actions or words during a heated exchange should not generally be taken as final. Instead, discussions should continue when tensions have deescalated and the intent behind an employee’s actions or words can be determined, particularly to enquire whether resignation was really intended.

Employers need to be aware that if they accept a heat of the moment resignation and treat the employment relationship as terminated, depending on the circumstances, this could result in a successful unfair dismissal claim by the employee.

Link - https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/july/adj-00047886.html

Authors – Lia Berkery & Laura Killelea