24 Mr Murray described the purported dismissal of Mr Brennan by Mr DeVos as an "...engineered situation...", meaning that, when Mr Brennan's substantial claim for underpayment of wages and other entitlements made against Mr DeVos fell on stony ground, it had been Mr Brennan's intention to bring his employment to an end. He was, to that extent, setting Mr DeVos up for an unfair dismissal claim. That certainly was the view of Mr DeVos' wife and, no doubt, her subsequent telephone call to Mr Mitchell informing him that he had not, in fact, been dismissed was made with that prospect in mind. I am satisfied that her offer of continued employment to Mr Brennan was simply to avoid the Part 6 application she saw coming from Mr Brennan. But that may have been too late.
25 Whilst the conversation between Mr Brennan and DeVos on Monday, 6 September, 2004 may have started amicably enough over a beer, I believe that it deteriorated into a heated exchange, despite the claims of both Mr Brennan and Mr DeVos to the contrary. Both men probably made comments in the heat of the moment which would have been better left unsaid. But it was open to Mr Brennan, as it is open to me in this hearing, to take the view that Mr DeVos did dismiss Mr Brennan at that time. Otherwise why would Mr DeVos's wife need to contact Mr Brennan and inform him that he had not actually been dismissed?
26 But once she had done so, Mr Brennan's dismissal lapsed and his ultimate decision not to resume work was his own decision, taken in spite of the letter dated Tuesday, 7 September, 2004 he received from Mr DeVos and his wife. Nevertheless, that "resignation" by Mr Brennan must be considered in the context of the conversation with Mr DeVos on Monday, 6 September, 2004. If Mr DeVos was offering Mr Brennan $6,000.00 in settlement of his claim (a substantial compromise if Mr Brennan's claim were to have any merit) and informing him that in future he would offer him work for "...a couple of days a week...", he was moving the goal posts in Mr Brennan's employment.
27 Mr DeVos does not deny making comments of that nature but he claimed that Mr Brennan only worked casually on that basis and that he was only offering Mr Brennan "...the same thing...". The evidence before me suggests otherwise. Mr DeVos' evidence was to the effect that, whilst there may have been a certain flexibility in the working arrangements he had with Mr Brennan, often he had full weeks of work at a time and Mr Brennan was employed on that basis. If Mr Brennan had already only been working for "...a couple of days a week..." for Mr DeVos, it would not have been necessary to reiterate that fact in the conversation between the two men.
28 In other words, Mr DeVos was unilaterally changing Mr Brennan's contract of employment to his detriment - one of the classic situations which fall under the concept of constructive dismissal - and that is one of Mr Kelly's claims in his submissions. I am satisfied that Mr DeVos constructively dismissed Mr Brennan. The termination of Mr Brennan's services flowed out of a claim which Mr Brennan made for what he perceived as wage justice and, whether his claim had merit or not, he was entitled to make it. It is unfair that his services were terminated in the circumstances described to me in the hearing and for his working hours to be changed to his detriment without further discussions between the parties.