LCR23287

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00055206 (CA-00067265, IR-SC-00003397)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 18 August 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.     

On 14 July 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation.  “Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend that the employer make a compensation award to the worker of €7,500.00, in full and final settlement of the dispute.’’             

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 April 2026.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Employer of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer.  The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint in respect of inconvenience, delay and distress and awarded compensation of €7,500. The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the Workers claim that there was delay and mishandling of a workplace bullying complaint that they made against their supervisor. The complaint made in late 2019 was investigated and the process concluded in April 2024 without any finding in respect of the original complaints.

The Union submitted that the Worker had followed the internal procedure by lodging a complaint in October 2019. An investigation took place and the Worker was advised in May 2020 that the complaint had not been upheld and informed that he could appeal that decision.  The Worker submitted an appeal on 4 June 2020. On 4 February 2022 some twenty months later, the Assistant Commissioner assigned to review the matter identified a number of procedural deficiencies in the manner in which the investigation had been conducted and directed that a new investigation be carried out.

 On foot of this a different Superintendent was appointed to conduct a fresh investigation into the complaint. By letter of 21 September 2023 some nineteen months later the Worker was informed that on the balance of probabilities his complaint was upheld. This finding was then appealed by the Worker in respect of whom the complaint was made in October 2023. In a report dated 13 March 2024 the Assistant Commissioner assigned to hear the appeal issued a report upholding the appeal on technical grounds and setting aside the second investigation. This left the Worker in a position where nearly five years after he lodged his complaint there was no valid investigation of the complaint or finding in respect of same, as both investigations had been set aside. The Employer at this stage instead of ordering a further investigation closed the case leaving the Worker with no outcome to his bullying complaint.

The internal policy Working Together to Create a Positive Working Environment provides timelines for processing complaints to conclusion. Those timelines were completely ignored on this occasion. Even allowing for the impact of COVID on the service, having to wait five years for a process to be completed and then to have it dismissed based on errors by the investigator cannot be considered conducive to a good workplace environment.

 The Employer in their submission to the Court stated that there was an initial pause in the procedures up to June 2021 as the person complained off was on maternity leave and the Worker was informed of the pause in August 2020. The Employer is not disputing the timelines set out by the Worker but there were factors that influenced those timelines. The Employer in November 2022 decided to seek legal advice in respect of the process and did not receive same until September 2023 at which point the Worker was informed that his complaint was upheld. That decision was then appealed by the other party, and the outcome was that the appeal was upheld based on flaws in the investigation process. At that time mediation was offered.

 The Workers then sought to bring a grievance through the internal procedure stating that the complaint had never been properly investigated but the Employer noted that the Garda Disputes Resolution Procedures explicitly do not apply to Bullying Harassment and Sexual Harassment procedures. At that stage the Union on behalf of the member referred the case to the WRC.

The Employer accepts that the complaint was not dealt with in a sufficiently prompt and professional manner by the Employer and that the Worker was entitled to a fair and reasonable assessment of the complaint. It was the Employer submission that the Court should not make any recommendation for further action as this would not be conducive to the restoration of workplace harmony.

Discussion and Decision

The Court finds that even allowing for COVID delays and the pausing of the process for the duration of the other Workers maternity leave, the manner in which and the time it took to process the complaint was not in line with what would be expected from a professional organisation like An Garda Siochana. No explanation was forthcoming as to why the Employer felt the need to get legal advice (which is not provided for in the agreed process) or why they allowed the procuring of same to run on for nearly 12 months. Having the outcome of two investigations set aside because the processes followed were not fair to one or other party raises question about the familiarity with the processes of the people appointed to carry out the investigation and a potential lack of training on the Employer’s policy. The fact that nearly seven years after the complaint was lodged there has been no finding of either upholding or not upholding the complaint based on the validity or otherwise of the complaint cannot possibly be conducive to a harmonious workplace.  The Court was disappointed to note that in response to a query from the Court the Employer confirmed they had not taken any steps to ensure that such a flawed process could not happen again nor had they taken any steps to carry out a formal review of the process to establish what lessons could be learnt. In all the circumstances of this case the Court finds that the Worker should be compensated for the failure to properly investigate his complaint and the length of time this was allowed to drag on for. The Court recommends that the Worker be paid compensation of €7,500.

 The appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

 The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
23/06/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.