LCR23176

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00052010 (CA-00063669-001 IR-SC- 00002687).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 April 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 4 March 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I cannot make any recommendation in relation to these disputes for the reasons set out.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 5 September 2025.

DECISION:

The dispute before the Court emanates from an investigation into a complaint of bullying made against the worker by a co-worker in 2022.

Following an initial investigation, the worker was cleared of any wrongdoing. The co-worker appealed that finding and the decision overturned. The complaint of bullying was upheld on appeal as the worker did not return his co-worker’s greetings on four occasions in the workplace. Such behaviour, however unintentional it may have been, met the definition of bullying in the policy in terms of “…deliberately ignoring an individual or their contribution at meetings”.

The worker takes issue with the outcome of the appeals process.

The worker contends that the policy is deeply flawed and unfairly weighted against the accused. He was not offered mediation which could have potentially resolved matters. He was not given a copy of the grounds of appeal, which were drafted by a solicitor, and was not allowed input into the appeals process. He says that he was left in the dark as to why he went from being cleared of wrongdoing to being labelled a “bully” and instructed to attend training. Having lodged a grievance, he was advised that such appeals were excluded from the grievance procedure.

The employer’s position is that the relevant policy was agreed with Garda associations and introduced by HQ Directive 164/07. All requirements of the policy were observed and a fair and reasonable process followed. The only point of difference between the initial finding and the appeal finding was down to a matter of judgment rather than any procedural issues. The Assistant Commissioner was entitled to make such a decision as “final arbiter” under the policy.

In making this recommendation, the Court has given careful consideration to the written submissions of the parties, and the answers provided to questions posed by the Court.

The worker in this case holds a strong and genuinely held belief that the processes applied were fundamentally flawed. He expressed concern that after 20 years of unblemished service, he has been labelled a bully, and such a label would impact his future career in the service.

The worker seeks that the Court find that the complaint of bullying cannot be sustained and that he was denied due process, fair procedure and natural justice.

The role of the Court in an appeal of this nature is to set out its opinion on the merits of the dispute and the basis upon which it should be resolved having regard to principles of fairness and good practice. When assisting parties resolve individual disputes the Court has no role or remit to step outside agreed processes and procedures or to insert itself into the role of a decision maker. The Court notes that the policy and procedures are agreed policies in place in the employment, and that the relevant Assistant Commissioner is the final arbiter in matters under the bullying policy.

In this case, the Worker is seeking that a decision made under the bullying policy and certain terms of that policy be set aside. Having reviewed the documentation submitted, the Court is satisfied that the employer complied with the agreed terms of the policy when investigating the complaint made against the worker in this case. While it is outside the experience of the Court that an adverse finding can be made against an individual without that individual having an opportunity to provide input into that decision process, in the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the workers appeal must fail.

Formal investigations into complaints of this nature can be a difficult matter for all parties concerned. The Court encourages parties to avail of mediation on a voluntary basis to resolves matters, wherever possible. The Court notes that in this case the worker was not offered the option of mediation as his co-worker had declined to participate in such a process.

The Court also notes that the worker was subject to a disciplinary process for refusing to attend training as instructed. He did not appeal that matter and has accepted the sanction issued. He accepts that the instruction issued from his superiors remain remains outstanding.

The Court is conscious that the within dispute has been a long and protracted one for the Worker concerned, and that it is in the interests of the Worker to move on and endeavour to put these matters behind him.

Noting all the above, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
2 October 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.