An accountant suspended after being accused of "naively" breaking her employer's anti-bribery and corruption policy by discussing a tender process directly with an employee of the contracting firm has lost a claim for constructive dismissal.
Her claim was rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) despite a finding that the company was "unreasonable" to suspend her – given that she had been "actively encouraged" to discuss work matters with this person.
However, in a decision published today, the employment tribunal concluded that the worker, Cliona Holt, had also acted unreasonably prior to quitting her job as group commercial accountant at Veolia Energy Services Ireland Ltd.
For that reason, she had not met the legal standard to establish that she had been constructively dismissed, as she had alleged in a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the tribunal ruled.
The WRC was told that Ms Holt circulated an email within the company in April 2023 stating that she had discussed a tender for business with a person employed by the contracting company – mentioning that they had indicated Veolia was the preferred contractor.
Veolia, which was represented by Judy McNamara of the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC) in the proceedings, took the position that the email was a matter of "concern" and "reflected inappropriate discussions between an employee and a client during a tender phase for a contract".
The complainant’s solicitor, Terence O’Sullivan, submitted that there had also been a "tongue in cheek" remark that "a trip to Poland would be welcome as a member of the client’s team had relations in Poland".
Ms Holt was suspended the same day, having been served with a letter of suspension alleging she had "breached the anti-bribery and corruption policy", disclosed "confidential information" and "may have taken action that could bring the company into dispute", it was submitted.
Ms Holt told the tribunal she was "astonished to receive this letter given that she had previously discussed similar matters with [the person] and had been actively encouraged to do so" by Veolia.
Mr O’Sullivan submitted that his client had obtained correspondence showing Veolia brought the email to the attention of the client company, whose management was "clear that they had no issue with it and considered the matter closed".
Veolia informed the WRC that its operations manager, Declan White, had discussed the matter with a project manager at the client firm, which ultimately determined that because Ms Holt’s contact "would not have any decision-making role in the tender process", the client was satisfied its tender process "had not been compromised".
However, it was submitted that Veolia could have been asked to pull out of the tendering process.
"The complainant's actions reflected a level of naivety and ill judgement, potentially breaching a number of company policies and necessitated action on the part of the respondent to ensure that the company was not put in a similar potentially precarious position again," it was submitted.
Ms Holt’s suspension continued as Veolia moved to address the email as a disciplinary matter, but meetings were postponed in April 2023. The complainant then went on absent on certified sick leave for "work-related stress" – a position confirmed by the company’s own occupational health advisor in June, the tribunal heard.
The company medical advisor sought to schedule a follow-up appointment in July, but Ms Holt replied: "l will not attend any such review at any time, certainly not till my health allows. This is my final word on the matter."
Two days later, on 28 July 2023, she raised a formal grievance, which was not progressed by the firm – its HR director, Donnamarie Masterson taking the position that it could not be heard until Ms Holt was certified fit, the WRC heard. The complainant resigned on 23 August.
Adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill wrote in his decision that the move to suspend Ms Holt in the first place was "unreasonable", noting her "undisputed" evidence that she had been "encouraged" to discuss such matters with her contact by the company previously.
However, he concluded that the company’s handling of the matter apart from that was "entirely reasonable".
"While I recognise that the decision to suspend the complainant understandably caused her considerable stress which resulted in her going on sick leave, her conduct thereafter in response to that of the respondent was entirely unreasonable," he added.
Mr O’Neill highlighted Ms Holt’s "refusal" to go to the company’s occupational health advisor after her first appointment; her "demands" that Veolia address her grievance before she was medically cleared to take part in the process, and her "precipitous resignation".
Rejecting the claim of constructive dismissal, Mr O’Neill dismissed Ms Holt’s statutory complaint
