Worker

Employer

Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Bar Manager

Sports Centre

Representatives

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 - 00003812

12/02/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private, and the recommendation is anonymised.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 12th of February 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant identified his dispute with his Employer through the workplace relations complaint form, wherein he stated:

“I have been subjected to a case of cyber bullying in my workplace. I have messages and audios as proof of march last year. I have notified my employer and nothing happened.”

The Complainant gave an oral account of the problems he has been experiencing in the workplace I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. This was largely comprised of text messages between co-workers and a communication with the Gardai. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

The Complainant raised concerns around his personal safety in the workplace.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission which I received on the day of the hearing. The Respondent read the submission aloud to give both the Complainant and me an opportunity to assimilate same. A number of appendices were attached to the submission made. These included the Contracts of employment and the Grievance and Dignity at Work policies.

The Head of Stadium Operations (Mr. C) gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent/Employer.

The Respondent rejects that the Complainant has articulated a dispute which is capable of being adjudicated on by an Adjudicator at this point in time.  In particular, the Respondent makes the case that the Complainant cannot and should not be allowed to present a dispute which has not been previously presented for consideration in the workplace. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant is precluded from bringing his issues before the WRC when he has not raised then internally under either the Grievance policy or the Dignity at work policy.  The argument presented read as follows:

The Respondent relies on an excerpt from ADJ-00030334 A Personal Assistant -v- A Trade Union which noted:

The jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer under this legislation is somewhat constrained. It is essentially an oversight role to ensure that a worker’s rights have not been breached and to seek to apply equitable (in the colloquial sense) remedies where that will be of assistance to the parties.

The Adjudicator has no role in substituting their decision for that made at the level of the workplace in the absence of some serious error in the processes.

There is no evidence (indeed none was offered) that the respondent failed to follow fair and proper procedures in the course of processing the grievance, only that the procedures applied failed to produce an outcome acceptable to the complainant.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this hearing.

It is clear to me that the Complainant is not particularly happy in this workplace at this moment in time. For reasons I cannot hope to understand, the Complainant is convinced that another member of the staff, and with whom he works, is running some sort of nefarious operation out of this workplace.  It does not seem appropriate to delve too far into these allegations as nothing has been substantiated or otherwise found to be true or correct. The Complainant has further indicated that he has been cyber bullied.

I am satisfied that the Employer herein is highly unlikely to be turning a blind eye to criminal activity on the premises. I am further satisfied that an opportunity has been given to the Complainant, and the rest of the staff herein, to air issues through an independent protected disclosure investigation commissioned by the Board of Directors in response to the swirl of conjecture and innuendo permeating this workplace.

The Respondent is seemingly unhappy with the outcome of this independent investigation and has continued to raise issues with management and the Board of Directors concerning the activity of this same co-worker. The Respondent’s response, and it has been consistent on this, is that the Complainant ought raise this and any issue he has through the procedures and policies available in the workplace. I am satisfied that the Complainant has repeatedly been provided with and directed to the Grievance policy and the Dignity in the workplace policy. There has been no formal complaint made of cyber bullying or any other bullying.

The Complainant seems a sensible person, but he has a blind spot on this issue. To date he has refused to formally present his complaints and grievances in a formal process so that they might be considered locally. The Complainant seems to think that he should be entitled to have his issues investigated on the basis of his remaining anonymous. The Employer, quite rightly, does not believe that this approach would accord with the need to provide natural justice and fair play. The parties are therefore at an impasse. In the circumstances the Complainant brought this matter to the attention of the WRC by way of a dispute raised under the IR Acts.

I am of the view that the obligation to address a workplace dispute internally before escalating it to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is based on several important legal, procedural, and practical reasons.

The contractual relationship between any Employer and the Employee will usually have internal grievance procedures embedded into the contract of employment. The procedures adopted by a workplace are presumed to be optimum for the particular workplace and therefore should be utilised. Resolving a dispute internally saves on time and resources for both the employer and the employee and should reduce the cost of legal representation and administrative overhead. It is hoped that resolving issues in-house helps to maintain ongoing working relationships. Using the internal procedures encourages employer responsibility and accountability in the workplace. The employer is held accountable for maintaining fair procedures, whilst the employee is expected to engage constructively. Grievance procedures and other internal mechanisms thrive on problem-solving and dialogue.

Going through internal steps creates a paper trail of efforts made to resolve the issue and helps the WRC or the Adjudicator to assess the reasonableness of both parties’ actions.

Any subsequent oversight which the WRC may have is designed to be complementary to the internal mechanisms and not as a substitute for them. The WRC may decline jurisdiction if it is not satisfied that an employee has attempted to resolve issues locally and/or has given no evidence of using the grievance procedure.

I find therefore that I am persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the Complainant cannot expect the WRC to conduct a full investigation into a third party who is a non-party. Nor yet can I direct the Respondent to conduct an investigation - as any investigation needs to have a framework or terms of reference based on a formal complaint.

I have examined the what’s app messages that the complainant brought to my attention as part of an allegation of cyber bullying. I am not satisfied that the messaging in question amounts to the bullying complained of, but do accept that the Complainant has identified a lack of a social media policy in the workplace. The Respondent has indicated a willingness to rectify this as soon as may be practicable.

The Complainant spoke of feeling nervous and afraid in the workplace, but could identify no further steps which the Respondent might take to ensure a sense of security. I am aware that the Respondent has already increased lighting, given a direct line to the Security Guards and upped CCTV coverage in response to the issues raised by the Complainant.