Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employee

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 - 00003917

06/03/2025

The Worker was employed by the Employer in a front of house role from 20 August 2022 to 17 February 2025.  She alleged that the Employer had removed protection screens in the premises where she worked and that she was subsequently subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual threatening behaviour by a customer. She alleged that the incidents involved had a severe impact on her mental health and resulted in her resignation due to those health issues.

The Employer is a bookmaker who accepted that the incidents had occurred but contended that it had taken all reasonable steps to protect employees while maintaining a personal contact with its customers.  The employer also contended that it had made efforts to support the Worker immediately after the incidents and thereafter to remain in the workplace.

In her complaint form, the Worker stated that she had worked with the Employer for almost three years and that they had removed bandit screens from protection and violence and threatening behaviour and had given assurances to staff that they would be safe and would never be left alone.  She outlined that she was left to work on her own on Monday 17 February 2025 with no protection screen and that this resulted in a drunk customer threatening to hurt her after work and to jump the counter and stab her.  In addition, he made a sexual threat against her.  She outlined further that the customer also threw a metal stool across the shop and that she was terrified. 

She outlined that she had to seek medical assistance for her mental wellbeing and that she was advised by her treating Physician to leave the job.  She outlined that she was afraid to leave her home and had to be prescribed sleeping tablets since the incident.  In conclusion she stated that the stress the job had caused her, had impacted both her physical and mental health.

Worker’s written submission

The Worker submitted that on the 17/02/2025 at around 15:00/16:00 hrs. she was the senior retail betting assistant on duty.  This meant that her colleague who was on shift with her was considered her cashier and was assigned to help her run the operation of the shop during a 13 hour shift. She submitted that the shop had its security bandit screen removed in 2023 as part of the new 'service led' renovation, to provide a better experience for the customer, however, she submitted that it left a lot to be desired from the staff perspective.

The Worker appended photos and screenshots of WhatsApp messages to her submission, and she drew attention to a text message from recipient from the District Co-Ordinator who was also the shop manager of the premises where she worked.  In that message the District Co-Ordinator stated “Hi everyone, with this refit I was told we were getting a screen on the counter for safety ‘cause they had done a risk assessment, and we needed one. Now I’m hearing because (the Shop) have kicked up a fuss we're not getting one. Just wanted to see how yous all feel about that because I've to ring (A) later about it.''

The Worker submitted that she and the other staff had expressed concerns for their safety and had advised that they did not feel comfortable but that this made absolutely no difference.  She submitted that they were told all the shops will eventually be 'service led shops' which they understood to mean “agree to it or leave”. She stated that the only reassurance staff had was that they were informed, service led shops (shops without a bandit screen) would always have 3 if not 4 staff on duty at all times. The Worker confirmed that this had never been the case, and that staff had been taken from the shops on numerous occasions to accommodate other premises.  She stated that despite having over 30 shops in the city centre it always seemed to be the shops without screens that were targeted to provide other shops with staff.

The Worker submitted that on 17 February 2025, her cashier had been taken from the shop and sent to another premises some distance away to 'cover a break' resulting in her being once again left alone in an open counter bookmaker.  She outlined that she had explained to the District Co-Ordinator on duty that she would be alone and did not want the cashier to leave, and she outlined that her concerns were not taken seriously, and the cashier left to work in the other premises anyway. She submitted that while she was alone, the shop had become quite busy. Two men approached the counter at the same time and tried to pressure her into taking their bets ahead of other customers. She explained, she was working on her own and that she could not take two bets at the same time and asked if they could bear with her. She submitted that one of the men was fine about it and apologised, but the other one had the complete opposite reaction.

The Worker outlined that the customer called her 'a cheeky c...t' and told her he would “get you after work and slice your throat”.  The Worker stated that he said knew that she would be off work at 21:30 and that he would be waiting'. She stated that he also called her 'a fat useless ugly bitch who can’t handle your job'.

The Worker outlined that at this point she refused further service to this customer and asked him to leave the premises, but that he then shouted further abuse about attacking her after work, followed by picking up a steel stool and throwing it across the shop. She confirmed that she informed the District Co-Ordinator about the incident and advised that she would like to go home as she was very shaken up.  She stated that he told her “there was nobody to cover her’.  She stated that at that point she told him she would walk out of the premises leaving the shop to its own devices as she was not comfortable and he then agreed to make arrangements.  She stated that it was a further 2 hours before he attended the premises to allow her to go home.

The Worker outlined that during that 2 hour wait, the man who had been abusive came back to the shop drunk and commenced intimidating her and pressuring her to take another bet for him. The Worker noted that this individual was a regular customer of the shop, and he was known for being annoying and disrespectful towards the staff.  She submitted that despite previous difficulties with this customer the Employer did nothing to address his behaviour and that it was only after he threw a steel stool across the shop and threatened to harm her that he was issued with a barring notice.  The Worker drew attention to messages which she appended to her submission where senior managers asked if she thought the behaviour warranted a banning notice and she submitted that this demonstrated the low level of remorse and compassion senior staff of the Employer had for their retail betting assistants.

The Worker outlined that she had eventually gone home upset, terrified, and completely shaken up after the incident. She stated that security had been informed about what had happened to her and that she received a phone call from the Loss Prevention Investigator who had advised she should have a cup of tea and read through a leaflet he had sent her about a company counsellor that she could speak with. She stated that at this point she had lost all faith in the company and went to her GP for medical care.

The Worker noted the medical certificate appended to her submission which stated she was unfit to work due to work related stress, but she submitted that the GP also advised her to leave the job, as this was not the first occasion, she had to be certified unfit to work due to stress.  The Worker provided additional medical certification in that regard.

The Worker outlined her concerns in relation to her interactions with a staff member in HR (hereinafter referred to as HR 1) surrounding her resignation.  She drew attention to her letter of resignation where she gave notice and stated that she was advised to leave by her GP due to the impact the job was having on my mental wellbeing.  The Worker noted the response from HR asking asking “if this was the right decision” and if she should maybe reconsider. The Worker submitted that she emailed back stating further her reasons for leaving, the main reason being incident in February, but she also referred to concerns regarding not getting accurate breaks during 12-hour shifts, the lack of staff, and slanderous accusations that had been made from senior members of staff. The Worker noted the reply from HR 1 which stated, 'I am sorry you feel that way'.  The Worker expressed that HR 1 was not sorry that the business breached the Health, Safety & Welfare at work Act 2005 everyday, that her safety was in jeopardy, that she was verbally attacked and abused, threatened by a customer who was known for causing unrest, left alone in a shop without a safety screen, mentally tortured as a result of the incident having to receive medication, again exposing the moral standing and compassion senior staff have for retail staff.

The Worker appended pictures of other shops which she described disgusting and vile. She noted that the multimillion revamp operation to 'better the customer' experience did not stretch to the staff common areas and noted that the only parts that had never been updated in both the premises within she had worked were the staff toilets and lunch area.

The Worker outlined the impact on her of the issues raised.  She outlined that she is a single mother with a 5 year old daughter and that she was left to pay for an apartment, bills, maintenance of a child, school fees, with an income of €294 one parent family allowance.  As a result of the incident, she submitted that she had gotten in debt, needed assistance from charities, and had to borrow money consistently as she could not afford to live the way she did when employed. She stated that during her two and a half years working for the company she was never late, never called sick, and had worked in shops despite the fact that she wasnt always comfortable in the location, but that she did so to help the business. The Worker stated that despite all of her efforts she was left broke and emotionally unable to apply for a new job as she remained “terrified” to work with the public again. She stated that she does not go to visit her family home as it is in the city centre and she no longer feels safe going there. She stated that she has panic attacks when she sees customers she would have been friendly with when employed and she feels nauseated when she passes one of the Employer’s shops.

In conclusion the Worker stated that her former District Co-Ordinator had not once reached out to check on her or even hear directly from her what had happened that day.  She stated that he simply did not want to know.  She outlined that she forwarded her notice to his email, and he did not even reply.

Information given by the Worker at hearing:

At hearing the Worker stated that she was in attendance on her own without representation and she outlined that she was very emotional and may have to stop throughout the hearing.  She stated that after the incident she was in shock and that no incident form had been completed.  She stated that she got no support, other than that she was sent the grievance procedure; but she said this was not about a form or a policy, it was about what had occurred to her.  She stated that on 17 February 2025, between 3 and 4pm, an incident occurred.  She stated that there were two people rostered at the time, but that one person had gone to cover a break in another shop and that this was standard practice. 

The Worker stated that the shop was really busy on the day and that there were two people placing bets and they were both competing for her attention.  She asked them for patience as she was on her own.  One of them said that that was okay, but the other customer “kicked up”.  She stated that he was a regular customer.  She confirmed that the customer began to shout, “I was here before him”.  She stated that she tried to explain that she was on her own and she would do her best, but he continued to shout, stating, “you useless fat, ugly …., you shouldn’t be here if you can’t handle the work”.  The Worker said that he went on to call her a “specky, ugly, geebag” and he said that he knew she would be off at 9:30pm.  She stated that in front of the other customer he shouted at her that he would strangle her with his own hands and that she was “a fat, ugly, specky, useless ….”. 

The Worker stated that she asked the customer to leave and that if he did not, she would call the Guards.  She stated that, at that time; he picked up a stool and threw it across the shop.  She further stated that by now there were several customers in the shop but that nobody intervened.  She stated that he left but that he came back about an hour later.

The Worker confirmed that within minutes of him having left on the first occasion, she rang the District Coordinator and asked if she could go home and she told him about the incident.   She stated that she felt the District Coordinator was not going to take any action because the individual involved was a regular customer.  He advised her that he would see if he could get cover.  She stated that by that time, the other member of the team, who should have been working with her, was gone for 1½ hours.  She stated that later in the afternoon, the shop manager from another store came and took over from her. 

The Worker stated that before she got cover to go home, the customer returned to the shop within 45 minutes to an hour later and she stated that on the second occasion, he appeared to be calmer and that he asked if he could put on a bet.  She stated that she asked him to leave and that the other customer who had been there during the first incident, also advised him that he ought to leave.  She stated that she sent the District Coordinator a Whats App message to advise him that the customer had returned to the shop and a while later a shop manager from another shop came to relieve her and she went home.  In response to a query from the Adjudication Officer, the Worker confirmed that she got the bus home. 

The Worker stated that she also contacted a member from the Security Team to ask about the incident and ask if he had seen it on camera and he advised that he had seen it. 

The Worker confirmed that she contacted HR the next day and had a short conversation with them about what had happened.  She stated that she could not be left on her own again.  She stated that she had said on numerous occasions before that she was not to be left working on her own or with simply a trainee and that she had raised that issue with HR on a number of occasions.  She stated that HR had said they would talk to the District Coordinator about that. 

The Worker stated that she had previously worked in the Fairview shop at the time when the screens were taken down, and that she had been looking for additional hours.  She stated that there had been a previous similar incident in that location and that as a result she was placed in Parnell Street.  She stated that Parnell Street was having a revamp and that the reason given for taking down the screens, was that it was a service led decision and that it was only after she commenced working in Parnell Street, that she realised she was working in a shop that had no screens. 

Worker’s response to Employer’s position:

The Worker stated that she had been advised after the previous incident in Fairview that she would be placed in a low risk shop but she stated that she was placed in Parnell Street and she could not understand why the shop was not categorised as a high risk shop when there was a shop across the road, just a few metres away, that was considered to be a high risk shop. 

In relation to the use of a panic button to contact Gardaí, the Worker stated that she would not agree that the Gardaí would be in a position to respond in minutes given the busy inner-city area within which the shop was located.  She stated that she believed that there was a real risk issue that this store had removed the protective screens given the conditions in place.  She stated that there was a problem in relation to the rosters and, in particular, the cover arrangements for break and she believed that this had not been properly risk assessed, but she understood that a risk assessment had taken place after the incident.  She confirmed that there was a real concern about being a lone worker and she stressed the importance of the second person being there, particularly if an incident occurred.  She stated that it was highly likely that if a person was under threat or pressure, they might forget to press the panic button, however, if there was a second person there, that person would have the presence of mind to press the panic button.  She stated that in the circumstances that arose during the incident, particularly where the customer threw a chair, the last thing on her mind would have been to use the fog cannon because she would not have wanted to lose vision. 

In relation to the question of an occupational health referral, the Worker stated that she was out sick for three weeks before she submitted her resignation and that within that time, there was no suggestion from the Employer that she be referred for occupational health support. 

Preliminary Issue

The Employer submitted that the Worker was given the opportunity to invoke the Company’s Grievance Procedure, following her resignation, in accordance with the Company’s established Grievance Procedure, that all employees were made aware of the Company’s Policies and Procedures, including the Grievance Procedure, and would have been signposted to these throughout their employment, including through induction and ongoing HR communications. The Employer confirmed that the Worker did not chose to avail of the Grievance Procedure and therefore failed to exhaust the internal procedures available for resolving workplace concerns. It was the Employer position that it was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to investigate or address any issued raised by the Worker prior to her resignation.  The Employer further confirmed that the opportunity to invoke the Grievance Procedure was extended to the Worker following her resignation to allow the Employer a reasonable opportunity to address any concerns she may have had in relation to her employment. The Employer submitted that, in the circumstances, the Worker was premature and procedurally unfair, as the Worker did not engage in or invoke with the appropriate Grievance Procedure prior to resigning or engaging with the Employer to ensure redress of her concerns.

The Substantive Issue

The Employer submitted that the Worker was employed as a Retail Betting Assistant from 20 August 2022 and was employed by the Employer for a period of three years.

The Employer acknowledged that the customer-facing nature of the role may, at times, present challenges; however, the Employer submitted that it had in place robust policies, procedures, and risk assessments to support all Team Members particularly those in customer facing roles.

The Employer confirmed that incident logs are maintained and escalated appropriately where necessary, and that the incident which was alleged to have taken place on 17 February 2025 was not reported at any time in an incident log.  The Employer appended a copy of the log to its submission.

 The Employer further confirmed that whilst the Worker was working alone in the shop, she was not rostered to work on her own on this date and was on her own for a period of time whereby her colleague on duty was assisting at a nearby location for the purpose of break cover. This is standard practice in designated low-risk stores, such as the one in which the Worker worked. The Employer confirmed that the shop had low footfall and therefore was considered a low risk for lone working.

The Employer confirmed that each Team Member whilst on duty is equipped with a Security Alarm and relevant information on the use of same and a copy of relevant information was appended to the submission. The Employer also confirmed that on 17 February 2025 the SOS Alarm was not activated, and no contact was made with the District Manager in relation to same.

The Employer confirmed that the Worker had completed significant training, including safety and Dignity at Work modules, and was aware of all reporting and support channels.   In addition, the Employer confirmed that whilst the shop was not the Worker’s base store, she had worked there on multiple prior occasions including the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 16h, and 17th of February 2025, as well as dates in January and April 2024 as part of her regular store rotation. The Worker did not at any point raise concerns with her District Manager or any member of the Team that she had concerns regarding working in the store.

The Employer confirmed that upon being informed of the incident by the Worker, the Loss Prevention Investigator contacted the Worker via phone and followed up with her later that afternoon by email, signposting the Worker to the Employee Assistance Programme and confirming that HR would make further contact.

The Employer also confirmed that on 18 February 2025 a HR 1 made contact with the Worker to offer continued support and reiterated the Worker’s access to the Employee Assistance Programme. The Employer confirmed that HR 1 received written confirmation on 18 February 2025 that the Worker intended to contact her GP in relation to a lack of sleep due to the alleged incident.

The Employer confirmed that on 6 March 2025 the Worker submitted her resignation, citing medical advice as the reason for her resignation. The Employer further confirmed that HR 1 again reached out to the Worker offering her the opportunity to reconsider and offered the Worker a call with the District Manager and re-shared the Employee Assistance Programme. The Employer also confirmed that as HR 1 was due to commence Annual Leave, the Worker was signposted to contact HR 2 should she require any support during this time.

The Employer confirmed that on 6 March 2025 the Worker confirmed her intention to resign from her position, raising further concerns regarding alleged defamation by colleagues. The Employer confirmed that HR 1 acknowledged these concerns, and provided a copy of the Grievance Procedure, and confirmed that should she wish to continue with her resignation this would be processed accordingly.

The Employer confirmed that a reference letter was arranged at the Workers request and access to the Employee Assistance Programme remained available to the Worker for a period following her resignation.

The Employer further confirmed in relation to the security measures, the Employer had reviewed its approach and made the decision that security screens were no longer necessary due to the low-risk nature, and alternative controls, such as fog canons and mandatory use of personal alarms were instructed.   In addition, the Employer confirmed that the Worker may not have felt comfortable working in the store, however, this was never raised as an issue with her District Manager or any other Team Member.  The Employer confirmed that at no point the Worker requested a reassignment to her regular store, and such a request may have been considered under normal procedures.

In conclusion the Employer submitted that it acted reasonably and in accordance with its established Policies and Procedures throughout the Worker’s employment and following the incident on 17 February 2025.

The Employer submitted that the Worker was fully trained, and familiar with her working environment, and had access to multiple internal procedures, including the Company Grievance Procedure and that at no point did the Worker raise a Formal Grievance Complaint and chose to resign from her role without giving the Employer reasonable opportunity to address her concerns. The Employer further submitted that all appropriate supports were offered before and after her resignation, and no panic alarm activation or escalation were recorded on the date in question.

The Employer maintained that it had fulfilled its duty of care and responded appropriately once made aware of the Workers concerns. The Employer confirmed that the resignation was voluntary and supported by medical advice, and all subsequent feedback was acknowledged and addressed in line with Company Procedure.

In the above circumstances the Employer requested that the Adjudicator find that the Employer had taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to provide a safe and secure workplace for the Worker. The Employer submitted that the nature of the betting industry involves a degree of unpredictable customer behaviour, which the Employer recognises and actively manages through a comprehensive set of security measures, risk assessments, and employee training. The Employer acknowledged that it is not possible to eliminate all risk in customer-facing roles but that it had implemented robust supports.

On the facts of this case, the Employer maintained that all reasonable supports were made available to the Worker and were appropriately signposted throughout her employment and during her resignation. The Worker did not utilise the available channels to report or escalate her concerns formally at the time. The Employer submitted that it was both reasonable and proportionate to expect Team Members in this sector to encounter some level of customer unpredictability, and that the Employer had taken all reasonable steps to mitigate such risks and protect the wellbeing of its Team Members. Accordingly, the Employer requested that the Adjudicator find that the Employer acted appropriately and reasonably at all times and with the Health and Safety of its Team Members at the core of each decision made.

Information provided by the Employer at hearing:

The Employer stated that the Worker was contacted the day after the incident by the Loss Prevention Investigator and that he referred her to EAP on a self-referral basis and that a further risk assessment was carried out.  The Employer also stated that there was a follow up phone call to the Worker from HR and that as part of that phone call, they also reminder her about the availability of the EAP.  The Employer stated that nobody wanted to accept the Worker’s resignation, and they accepted that this was a particular type of difficult customer and that they could see the impact that the incident had on the Worker. 

The Employer confirmed that the incident had been logged by the District Coordinator the day after it occurred and that the Worker had raised an issue with the Loss Prevention frontline team.  They confirmed that in terms of the workplace, that there was CCTV in place, that there was a personal safety device (alarm) and panic buttons, two on the counters, and others at other locations throughout the shop.  The Employer confirmed that the Worker was in a lockable area and that she had undergone two refresher training programmes in relation to safety with the Loss Prevention team in relation to what’s in place, tin drawers and safes, and in relation to the use of the panic safety device and how to manage the floor.  The Employer also outlined that the panic button was connected to the Garda Station and that the Gardaí had a response time of mere minutes as they were located in Store Street Station. 

The Employer stated that a risk assessment had been carried out of the store before the removal of the screens and that appropriate conditions were in place.  The Employer also confirmed that there were two people on the roster, but they were unclear at hearing whether or not the arrangements to reduce to one had been risk assessed and agreed to provide risk assessment.  The Employer also confirmed that risk assessments had been carried out after the incident had taken place. 

In response to a query from the Adjudication Officer, the Employer confirmed that there was no referral of the Worker to the Occupational Health Service, but that this was in the context of her resignation having been received.  The Employer also confirmed that there was not live monitoring of the CCTV but that it was recorded CCTV and that if an employee alerted the Loss Prevention team to an incident, that they would have the option to go live, to call the Gardaí and to alert team members from other shops in the vicinity.

The Employer appended to its submission relevant policy documents, the Workers training records, details of the EAP Programme and guidance documents on the use of safety features.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties, as well as information provided at hearing by the parties.

Preliminary Issue

I note that the Employer position was that the matter should have been raised by the Worker, in the first instance, in the internal Grievance Procedure and I note the Worker position, that she had raised concerns on an informal basis previously but to no avail.

In general, there is an expectation, that a Worker will engage with the internal processes and give the Employer the opportunity to resolve matters.

In this instance, however, it is evident from the medical documentation, that following the incident that occurred on 17 February 2025 the Worker would not have been able to engage in a process to either articulate or adequately represent her concerns.  When the hearing in this matter took place almost 6 months later the Worker was still visibly distressed and struggled to articulate her position.  She relied heavily on a document which she had submitted in advance of hearing.

Had the Employer referred her to Occupational Health soon after the incident they might have been in a position to afford her time to address her grievances, and she might have been better placed to articulate those grievances.

In these unique circumstances, I consider it reasonable to fully examine her complaints, notwithstanding the fact that the matters were not the subject of internal procedures.

The Substantive Issue

The Workers account of events on 17 February 2025 was not disputed by the Employer and the impact of those events on the Worker was also accepted by the Employer. 

The questions that arise to be considered are as follows:

·       Was the type of incident that occurred reasonably foreseeable?

·       If so, did the Employer take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of such incidents?

And

·       When the incident occurred, did the Employer act reasonably to support the Worker?

Was the type of incident that occurred reasonably foreseeable?

I accept the Employer submission that the nature of the betting industry involves a degree of unpredictable customer behaviour, and I note that the store in which the incident occurred is located in the city centre and in a location which can be beset by disorderly conduct.

I note the Workers position that she should not have been working alone and that she had been guaranteed that she would not be following a previous incident in another store.  I noted the Employer position that the Worker was rostered with a colleague, but I also noted that the colleague was absent for at least an hour and a half, having been sent, despite objections from the Worker, to cover breaks in another store.  I note that the Worker described this as a routine occurrence, and I note that this position was not challenged by the Employer.

In light of the above, I believe that an employer could have foreseen that such an incident could occur.

Did the Employer take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of such incidents?

In this regard I note the Employer position that it carried out risk assessments before eliminating safety screens from the store and that it had a number of other safety measures in place and that the Worker was trained in the use of all those safety features.

I had asked the Employer, at hearing, to provide a post hearing submission of the risk assessments it stated had been carried out on lone working in that store.  No submission in that regard was ever received and no evidence was provided with the original submission of the risk assessment carried out prior to removing the screens.

I note also the WhatsApp message submitted by the Worker where the District Co-Ordinator stated “with this refit I was told we were getting a screen on the counter for safety cause they had done a risk assessment, and we needed one. Now I’m hearing because (the Shop) have kicked up a fuss we're not getting one.”  The screenshot of this message was appended to the Worker submission, which was received by the Employer but the Employer did not challenge this at hearing.  It would appear from the content that, in fact, the outcome of a risk assessment was that screens should have been provided.

In addition, I note the position of the Worker, which was not disputed at hearing, that the store almost directly across the road was deemed high risk, while the store she worked in was considered low risk.  No real explanation was given by the Employer for this different categorisation of risk other than a view expressed in the submission that the store in which the Worker was placed was considered low risk because of low footfall.

In relation to the lone working arrangement, I note the Employer submission that the Worker was rostered on with a colleague.  However, I also note that it was common case at hearing that the colleague had been assigned to cover breaks in another store and was absent for an hour and a half. It was also common case that this was a regular occurrence that would appear to be the result of understaffing.

In all the circumstances described I am not convinced that the Employer based the change in the provision of safety screens on a clear and unambiguous risk assessment.  I accept that the Employer had made safety provisions but in the absence of information providing details of the risks identified and the likely occurrence of those risks and what mitigations were put in place, I am not satisfied that the Employer took all reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk.  I am also very concerned about the lone worker arrangements.  It is not sufficient to simply roster the required number of staff and consider the obligation discharged.  In such a volatile industry there is an obligation on the Employer to have sufficient staff actually on duty to satisfy the staffing requirement.  It is quite clear that was not the case on the day of the incident and, indeed, on many other days.

When the incident occurred, did the Employer act reasonably to support the Worker?

It is clear from the Workers submission and from her account of events that the incident in February 2025 had a significant impact on her wellbeing.  It is also evident that she felt unsupported during and after the event.

I was particularly struck by the fact that, despite making contact with the District Co-Ordinator and relaying the details of what had occurred no one came to her assistance, the other staff member was not immediately returned to the store, nor did the District Co-Ordinator make haste in coming to her assistance.  In fact, she was left alone, anxious and terrified and was ultimately again faced with the re-attendance of the aggressive customer and required to deal with his behaviour alone.

I was also aghast that, in circumstances where she had been physically threatened by the customer, who displayed an awareness of her finish times and mode of transport, she was allowed to leave work unaccompanied and required to stand waiting for a bus to bring her home.

In this regard I believe the Employer showed absolutely no regard for the safety and wellbeing of the Worker and in fact, placed her at further risk.

The Employer also failed to display any genuine concern for the Worker in not referring her to an Occupational Health service, particularly once it received medical certification that she was suffering from work related stress.  The Employer was well aware of the underlying event that gave rise to the stress reaction and yet they took no steps to provide her with appropriate medical support.

I recognise that she was advised of the EAP service, this was on a self-referral basis, but this was the only step taken to provide support and, in my view, was inadequate in all the circumstances.  By the time she resigned, some three weeks later, any suggestion that she might want to reconsider her position, was destined to fall on arid ground.

Taking all the above into account I consider that the Employer could reasonably have foreseen that such a serious incident could occur, did not take adequate steps or make adequate provision to mitigate the risk to its employee and failed to adequately support the Worker once the incident occurred. 

Health and safety