Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Police Officer

A Police Force

Representatives

A  Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003201

27/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003202

27/09/2024

The Worker has referred two disputes to the WRC for investigation. The first concerns her claim that the Employer delayed investigating a bullying complaint she filed against a colleague. The second dispute pertains to the Employer’s handling of her request to have her sick leave categorized under a special administrative Code typically applied in cases of “Injury on Duty.”

IR - SC – 00003201:

On 9 March 2023, a Worker submitted a complaint under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy against a colleague, B. The Chief Superintendent acknowledged receipt the same day and offered mediation on 13 March, which the Worker declined. According to the policy, an investigator should have been appointed within 10 days, but this did not occur.

On 12 April 2023, B filed a disciplinary allegation against the Worker, leading to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Concerned about the lack of progress in her original complaint, the Worker contacted the Dignity Policy Administration Office on 8 May 2023 but received no reply. On 12 May 2023, she formally lodged a Dispute Form with her Superintendent under the Employer’s Dispute Resolution Procedures. Although the form was acknowledged, no follow-up was provided.

On 25 May 2023, the Worker received an email from the Divisional Office stating that, due to the complexity and number of involved parties, the matter could not realistically be addressed within the policy’s recommended timeframes. Dissatisfied, she escalated the dispute to the Assistant Commissioner on 3 June 2023. Eventually, on 28 June 2023, a Superintendent was appointed to investigate her complaint—over three months after it was filed—with no explanation for the delay. That Superintendent was later reassigned, and another was appointed in October 2023.

On 5 January 2024, the Assistant Commissioner acknowledged an undue delay in processing the complaint but offered no justification, stating only that the Executive Director of HR would be notified. The investigation concluded on 12 August 2024, after receiving extensions that were requested in advance and agreed to while the process was ongoing. Despite the extended timeline and serious nature of the allegations, the Worker’s complaint was ultimately not upheld, causing her distress.

Seeking recourse, the Worker requested a review, which led the Assistant Commissioner to refer the matter to an Independent Expert. While the expert also did not uphold the complaint, she expressed concern over how B handled the disclosure of alleged sexual harassment. Importantly, the Worker never received an explanation for the delay in investigating her complaint.

The lack of timely resolution, transparency regarding delays, and acknowledgment of procedural failures have left the Worker feeling disillusioned and without closure. Her case highlights the emotional toll and systemic flaws caused by a failure to adhere to internal policies, emphasising the importance of consistent and fair procedural conduct in workplace investigations.

IR - SC – 00003202:

The Worker's difficulties began in October 2022, following a sexual harassment incident in the workplace. The emotional and psychological impact of this event, and the way the investigations into it were handled, significantly affected her health. As a result, she first went on sick leave due to work-related stress from 5 to 16 November 2022.

The situation escalated in 2023. On 27 April, she attended an in-person consultation with a doctor in the Occupational Health Department, during which she informed the doctor of the harassment incident and its ongoing toll on her mental health. The doctor recommended that her employer promptly review the issues she raised and also advised that she be offered an independent medical appointment. In the following months, the Worker continued to suffer. She was out of work again from 8 to 18 May, and once more from 17 to 20 June, citing the same stress-related issues.

On 28 June 2023, she sent a report to an Inspector, detailing the cause of her ongoing stress and absences. The Inspector completed a stress report covering the May and June periods, concluding that her stress stemmed solely from her experience of reporting wrongdoing and feeling unsupported by the organisation. This report was forwarded to the Chief Superintendent.

Later that year, from 9 to 10 October 2023, the Worker experienced another short period of work-related stress leave.

By early 2024, her condition had not improved. On 4 May 2024, she reported sick for the fifth time in under two years, again citing work-related stress. This absence has continued since that date. On 6 June 2024, she formally requested that her sick leave be classified under the Employer’s Code, clearly stating that the workplace stress was directly linked to the original harassment incident and the way related investigations were handled. She submitted a detailed report to an Inspector who had been tasked with investigating her claim.

The following day, on 7 June 2024, the Chief Superintendent’s office responded, stating that the matter had been referred to the Executive Director of HR for consideration. However, as the Worker received no further correspondence and believed that the Chief Superintendent, in his capacity as Divisional Officer, should have handled the matter locally, she lodged a formal complaint on 29 July 2024 under the Employer’s Disputes Resolution Procedures.

In the course of her complaint, she raised three specific concerns: the Divisional Officer’s failure to certify her illness under the Code, the delay in processing her application, and the failure to follow proper procedures as outlined in the Employer’s Code.

Notably, on 22 April 2024, the Chief Superintendent had written that under the most recent instruction from the Executive Director of HR & PD, all applications for certificates under the Code related to work-related stress must now be submitted centrally to the Executive Director. However, this directive contradicted both the Code and established legal precedent. The Code explicitly grants Divisional Officers the authority to make such determinations locally. The instruction cited had not been agreed upon by the Emplyer and the Representative Association. In forwarding the application without expressing any doubt or conducting a local determination, the Chief Superintendent failed to uphold his responsibilities under the Employer’s Code.

Despite having raised these procedural concerns, the Worker’s case continued to stall. On 16 July 2024, the Chief Superintendent stated that her application would only be considered by the Executive Director following the completion of the Dignity at Work process, despite the employer’s failure to follow that very policy. On 29 July 2024, in response to her formal complaint, the Chief Superintendent asserted that the delay was outside of his control since he had forwarded the application under the Code in line with internal policy.

Further correspondence followed. On 5 August 2024, the Chief Superintendent informed the Assistant Commissioner that investigations into both the workplace stress and the Code application had been completed and sent to HRM Sick Section. On 29 August 2024, he requested a meeting with the Executive Director of HR & PD to try to expedite a decision.

Meanwhile, the Worker met with the Chief Medical Officer and was subsequently referred to a Consultant Psychiatrist on 9 September 2024. That same day, a doctor from the Occupational Health service wrote to the Executive Director of HRM, stating that certain workplace factors were clearly contributing to her health issues and that she required ongoing treatment and rehabilitation. Given the continued delay in classifying her leave, she was placed on Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration (TRR) from 10 September 2024. This status had serious consequences: while on TRR, she was no longer accruing reckonable service. Had her illness been certified under the Code, she would have remained on full pay, and her service would have continued to count toward her pension and career progression.

On 20 November 2024, she was assessed by the Consultant Psychiatrist, whose report—issued on 3 January 2025—firmly linked her illness to the original October 2022 incident and the employer’s subsequent handling of it. The psychiatrist concluded that she was not fit to return to work for at least four more months.

Throughout this prolonged process, the employer consistently failed to act in accordance with the Code and the Dignity at Work policy. The refusal to engage with her complaint, the reassignment of authority from local to central decision-makers without proper agreement, and the failure to conduct a timely, fair assessment of her situation all contributed to a significant deterioration in her health and well-being. While the Directive allows for retrospective pay adjustments, this provision cannot excuse the extensive delay and its severe consequences. The delay has led not only to financial hardship but also to unnecessary anxiety, emotional suffering, and a lasting impact on the Worker’s career.

IR - SC – 00003201:

On 9 March 2023, the Worker submitted a formal complaint against her supervisor, referred to as B. On 13 March 2023, the Worker confirmed her intention for the matter to be handled under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy. Prior to this complaint, two separate incidents occurred involving the Worker and B: the first, on 24 February 2023, involved a verbal dispute about the progress of investigation files; the second, on 5 March 2023, involved another verbal altercation concerning text messages and social media activity. This second incident took place in front of several colleagues. Both events led to disciplinary action being taken against the Worker.

On 5 January 2024, the Assistant Commissioner issued a determination under the Employer’s Dispute Resolution Procedure, which reviewed the Dignity at Work investigation. It was concluded that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing the complaint. Following this, on 8 January 2024, the Investigating Officer identified 22 potential witnesses, 16 of whom had already been interviewed. A four-week extension to complete the investigation was requested, with confirmation that neither the Worker nor B objected. The extension was granted by the Office overseeing the Dignity at Work Policy.

The investigation concluded—within the agreed extended timeframe—on 12 August 2024, and the findings were submitted to the Divisional Officer. After reviewing the case and determining that it had been investigated impartially and thoroughly, the Divisional Officer issued a decision on the same date. It was concluded that no further action would be taken, as the complaints were not upheld. Both the Worker and B were notified of the outcome and were reminded of the available support services and the right to appeal the decision within 42 days, as provided in the Dignity at Work Policy.

On 22 September 2024, the Worker formally appealed the investigation's findings. On 8 October 2024, the Assistant Commissioner informed the Worker that they would act as the final decision-maker in accordance with the policy, but would also appoint an independent expert to audit the investigation and provide recommendations. It was acknowledged that the final decision might not be possible within the 30-day period outlined in the policy; however, a commitment was made to conclude the matter by 20 December 2024.

On 19 November 2024, the Assistant Commissioner provided the Worker with details regarding the qualifications and employment law expertise of the appointed independent expert. The final decision was issued on 20 December 2024, following receipt of the expert's report and a full review of all relevant materials. Although the Worker’s complaint was ultimately not upheld, the expert identified procedural shortcomings. As a result, the Employer committed to engaging with the Dignity at Work policy holder to implement additional training on handling workplace complaints, particularly those of a sensitive nature. This process remains ongoing.

IR - SC – 00003202:

The case involves a worker who has experienced repeated absences from work due to stress allegedly linked to a workplace incident on 24 October 2022. After a prolonged period of leave, the Worker formally applied on 6 June 2024 to have her sick leave classified under a special administrative Code, often used in cases of “Injury on Duty” (IOD). This Code applies when an employee suffers a work-related injury and is deemed "non-effective" or unfit for duty. Though the application was submitted nearly 20 months after the incident, such delays are permissible under the Code, which does not impose time limits on filing, provided the claims are legitimate.

The Code grants significant benefits to workers whose injuries are recognized as work-related. These include full salary (with allowances), full accrual of service as though the employee were actively working, and uninterrupted pension contributions. Because these benefits are substantial, applications under this Code—particularly those involving psychological or stress-related conditions—are subjected to close scrutiny to prevent misuse.

The decision-making process for such applications typically begins with the Divisional Officer, who makes the initial judgment on whether the injury is related to the employee’s duties. However, if there is any uncertainty—especially in cases involving complex psychological conditions—the case must be escalated to the Executive Director of Human Resources. This escalation process is governed by internal procedures outlined in a document titled Management of Sickness Absence, which provides guidance for handling IOD applications and emphasizes the importance of expert medical input in mental health-related cases.

A key component in determining the validity of stress-related IOD claims is the evaluation by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). A formal directive requires that the CMO either personally conducts or arranges for a medical assessment. The CMO’s evaluation is critical, as Divisional Officers lack the medical expertise to assess psychological injuries. Until the CMO's opinion is obtained, the absence is treated as an ordinary illness, with no special classification or benefits applied. Once a CMO confirms that the illness is attributable to a workplace incident, the classification can be retroactively changed to reflect an IOD, triggering the associated entitlements.

In this specific case, the Worker’s application was acknowledged by her Divisional Officer on 7 June 2024, who correctly referred it to the Executive Director of HR due to its complexity. However, the Officer’s communication mistakenly suggested that a decision had already been made by the Executive Director, when in fact, that office only makes recommendations—the final authority rests with the Divisional Officer, who must consider all inputs including medical and HR advice.

Following the escalation, the Worker underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 20 November 2024, and a formal report was completed by a Consultant Psychiatrist on 3 January 2025. This report is now under review and will serve as a foundational element in the CMO’s pending assessment. Management has expressed its intention to fast-track the referral process once all required documentation is in place.

As of now, the case remains unresolved, pending the CMO's expert opinion. Once the CMO’s assessment is completed, the Executive Director of HR will issue a formal recommendation, after which the Divisional Officer will render the final decision on whether the Worker’s absence qualifies under the special IOD Code. All parties are awaiting this outcome, which will determine the Worker’s entitlement to retroactive benefits and special protections under the Code.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

IR - SC – 00003201:

I find that the Employer significantly failed the Worker, particularly in light of the unreasonable and protracted delay between the initiation of initial complaint on 9 March 2023 and the completion of the investigation report on 12 August 2024. This failure was further compounded by the Employer’s total disregard for the timelines stipulated in its own Dignity at Work Policy.

IR - SC – 00003202:

I find that it was reasonable for the Divisional Officer to refrain from making an immediate decision on the Worker’s application without first obtaining a medical opinion, given the complexity of the Worker’s psychological condition and the Officer’s lack of medical expertise.

Although I acknowledge the considerable delays in processing the Worker’s request to have her sick leave reclassified under the special administrative Code, I also note that she will not suffer any financial loss if the application is ultimately approved, as it will be backdated to the onset of her illness.