ADJ-00034743 - Workplace Relations Commission Kieran Scullion V Corajio Unlimited Company trading as Mr Price Branded Bargains

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 June 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Date: 12 June 2023
• Hearing Date: 30 November 2022
• Docket Number: ADJ-00034743
• Respondent: Corajio Unlimited Company trading as Mr Price Branded Bargains

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

This complaint centres around the complainant’s return to work with the respondent on or about the 17th December 2020, and his subsequent resignation which was conveyed to the respondent by the complainant’s solicitor on 4th March 2021. The complainant is claiming constructive unfair dismissal. Both parties provided written submissions at the adjudication hearing and availed of the opportunity to provide supplemental submissions after the hearing had concluded. The final date of receipt of additional information in relation to the complaint was 18th January 2023.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Counsel for the complainant outlined a previous disciplinary process which had resulted in the demotion of the complainant within the organisation. A High Court injunction application made by the complainant in December 2020 resulted in undertakings given to him by the respondent and his return to his employment on 17th December 2020 at his substantive grade of General Manager. Despite returning to work in good faith, counsel for the complainant stated that the respondent did not act in line with the commitment it gave in its undertakings and on his return to work, the complainant was side-lined, undermined, and ignored. By letter dated 27th January 2021, the complainant’s solicitor submitted a grievance letter to the respondent outlining the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the respondent’s actions since his return to work. The respondent did not accept this as a valid grievance and instead suggested that the complainant should contact HR “with a view to agreeing whether an informal or formal process is appropriate”. The complainant’s solicitor subsequently wrote to the respondent confirming the complainant’s resignation on 4th March 2021. Counsel for the complainant contends that the actions of the respondent were such that the complainant was left with no option but to resign from his employment. Evidence The complainant gave sworn evidence at the adjudication hearing. The complainant stated that he had commenced his employment with the respondent in 2015 as a Goods In receiver and was subsequently promoted to Facilities Manager. The complainant stated that he was subject to a disciplinary process in 2020 which led to his demotion and subsequent High Court proceedings. The complainant stated that he himself was investigating a staff member previously who was the partner of the person who carried out the investigation into the complainant in 2020 which the complainant contends was inappropriate and should not have happened. The complainant stated that it was the bullying and harassment he experienced in 2107 by this individual that had led to his resignation and that he had said this at his exit interview at the time. The complainant stated that he was approached in April 2019 and was offered a job with the respondent and took it on the basis that he was assured that other issues were “in the past.” The complainant stated that following his return there was several issues including the non-payment of a bonus as well as other difficulties with the appropriate reporting structures in the organisation and further interpersonal difficulties in how he was treated by his colleagues. It was put to the complainant in cross examination that although the complainant had a fractious relationship with the HR department as a result of the issues in 2017, he returned to the organisation in 2019 and in respect of the issues that he was unhappy with, no formal grievances were lodged, and no complaints were conveyed to management by him. The complainant acknowledged that until the investigation in 2020 everything was going well and in respect of the issues that he was unhappy with, he felt there was no point in raising a grievance as his relationship with HR had deteriorated to such an extent that he felt he would not get a “fair shot”.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent acknowledged that the complainant returned to its employment in December 2020 following undertakings it gave to the complainant in relation to a previous disciplinary process and the related disciplinary sanction. The respondent stated that following his return to work in December 2020, the complainant had significant levels of absence between January and February 2021 and was continually absent from work for a number of reasons from 9th February 2021 until the expiry of his notice period in April 2021. Undertakings given on 8th December 2020 The respondent stated that, in correspondence to the complainant’s solicitor in advance of High Court proceedings scheduled to take place on 9th December 2020, it undertook to immediately reinstate the complainant to the role of General Manager with payment of the appropriate salary and to restore the responsibilities and reporting line of the complainant. The respondent further committed to providing the complainant’s HR file to him including the records of a previous exit meeting held in October 2017. In its correspondence, the respondent outlines that it reserved the right to recommence a disciplinary process against the complainant and to apply whatever disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate following the conclusion of that process. The respondent also confirmed its agreement to pay the complainant’s legal costs in relation to the High Court proceedings. The respondent further stated that in relation to the complainant’s return to work, it had complied with all the undertakings it gave. In respect of...