Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ann  Irwin

Community Workers Clg Community Work Ireland

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Marie O'Connor SIPTU

 Gerry Michell, HR Advisor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00065563-001

23/08/2024

The Complainant, Ms Irwin, worked for the Respondent, Community Workers CLG.  She alleges the behaviour of the respondent resulted in her being constructively dismissed.  Evidence was given under oath/affirmation by the Complainant, Ms Irwin, and Ms Anastasia Crickley for the respondent.  All evidence was subject to cross examination.  All documentation received from both parties was considered by me in reaching my decision.

The Complainant, Ms. Ann Irwin, was employed as a National Co-Ordinator by the respondent, Community Workers CLG from 1st July 2016 until she was forced to resign on 22nd May 2024 due to the behaviour of the respondent. The Complainant resigned after 16 years of service, stating it was not a voluntary decision but one forced upon her as a result of the abusive working environment and the penalisation she suffered for raising a formal complaint, and the unreasonable actions of the Respondent. We contend that a fundamental breach of contract i.e. unilaterally changing working terms, allowing bullying/harassment, and also a breach of an implied term of trust and confidence between the employer and employee has occurred in this case.

In 2014, CWC secured core funding under the Scheme to Support National Organisations (SSNO). At this time, the Complainant was invited to interview for the role of National Co-Ordinator. The Complainant invited Ms A, with whom she had worked successfully in various roles and enjoyed a positive working relationship, to submit a joint application. The joint application was successful, and both shared the role of National Co-Ordinator on a part-time basis. The partnership between the Complainant and Ms A was extremely successful, apart from one incident in 2018.

In August 2022, the Complainant experienced a serious and unexpected health issue, requiring her to spend almost five weeks in hospital, followed by a period of recuperation at home. During this time, the Complainant kept the CWI Central Group (the CWI Board of Directors) and Ms A updated on her condition and progress. The Complainant frequently called and texted Ms A to discuss her plans for a part-time return to work. The Complainant returned to work on a part-time basis in December 2022 and resumed full-time duties in January 2023.

 While the Complainant was grateful to Ms A for maintaining the work during her illness, it must be noted that a significant portion of the work remained incomplete and awaited her return.

Despite repeated requests, the Complainant was not provided with a Contract of Employment, despite being assured it would be issued.

Shortly after the Complainant’s return to work in December 2022, the Complainant began to notice changes in Ms A’s behaviour towards her.  Initially, the changes were subtle, but they quickly escalated into significant issues. These included:

•                 Consistent microaggressions and snide remarks directed at the Complainant;

•                 Micromanagement to a degree that created paralysis in the Complainant’s work.

•                 Open aggression, including Ms A shouting over the phone at the Complainant.

•                 Challenging decisions that had been collectively agreed upon and undermining follow-up actions.

•                 Asserting authority Ms A did not possess over the Complainant.

•                 Involvement in work areas assigned to the Complainant without sharing information, particularly on projects that were supposed to be shared.

On June 1st, 2023, the annual Social Inclusion Forum (SIF) took place. The Complainant held primary responsibility for this event, including presenting at the open plenary session. Ms A’s assigned role was to facilitate an online breakout workshop.

The Complainant checked with Ms A multiple times to confirm her availability and sent all relevant materials to her in a timely manner. The Complainant finally completed her own preparations 11:00 p.m. the night before the SIF.  Early the next morning, Ms A sent several WhatsApp messages that were undermining and unhelpful, particularly given the Complainant’s role in leading the event. The complainant was deeply upset at this behaviour.

The following day, during a routine health check-up, the Complainant’s medical team immediately noticed her distress and concern. After discussing the matter with the team, they assigned her a workplace bullying specialist to provide support.

On June 23rd, 2023, another incident occurred in relation to the CWI Annual Report. Historically, drafts of written materials were exchanged between the Complainant and Ms A for comments and input. However, Ms A had ceased this practice at this time.

The Complainant, working on the Annual Report, sent an early draft of the Chairperson’s foreword to the then CWI Chairperson for comment. Ms A was copied on the email. Ms A reacted aggressively, sending the Complainant a series of hostile emails.

Without the Complainant’s knowledge, Ms A then emailed the Chairperson separately, instructing her to disregard the email sent by the Complainant. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the Complainant’s position with the Chairperson. The Complainant, deeply upset and shaken, felt she could no longer tolerate Ms A’s behaviour. She telephoned the Chairperson, providing a brief summary of the ongoing issues. The Complainant was visibly distressed during the call, crying and shaking as she spoke.   At this stage, the Complainant believed that a low-level intervention would suffice and that, if informed of her behaviour, Ms A would cease her actions. The Complainant made clear that she did not seek an apology or any form of formal acknowledgement. She simply wanted the behaviour to stop.

It was agreed that the Chairperson would speak with Anastasia Crickley, CWI Director (the Director), with whom Ms A had a long-standing relationship, and also to the Treasurer of the CWI Board, and revert to the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant spoke with the Director and specifically requested that she “have a word” with Ms A about the issues.

Several days later, the Director contacted the Complainant to inform her that she had spoken to Ms A. However, Ms A offered no acknowledgement of the issues raised and no indication that the behaviour would change. At the Complainant’s insistence, the Director agreed to raise the matter with Ms A again, this time referring to the specific issues (outlined above). The Complainant reiterated her hope that once Ms A understood the seriousness of her behaviour, it would cease.

However, Ms A’s behaviour deteriorated again shortly thereafter. On 4th July 2023, Ms A emailed the Complainant, suggesting that they needed a plan for a specific piece of work. This was work that had already been agreed and planned between them. The Complainant responded, pointing this out and agreeing to Ms A’s suggestion of a meeting but proposing that it be facilitated by a third party due to their strained working relationship. Ms A’s response was both abusive and undermining, stating she had “grave concerns” that the Complainant felt a third-party facilitator was necessary.

During this period, the Complainant had several phone calls with the Director, during which she repeatedly emphasised that while she had no wish to escalate the matter further, she also could not allow the situation to be ignored. On 14th July 2023, during a phone call, the Director updated the Complainant about her conversations with Ms A. The Director reported that Ms A’s response was that they “may not be getting along” but that they had to “get on with their work.” The Complainant noted that this was not a matter of “not getting along”; rather, it was a one-sided campaign of abuse against her.

The Complainant felt that the Director had not communicated the full extent of the issues she had raised and requested that the Director speak to Ms A again. She specifically asked the Director to be clearer that the Complainant was being subjected to microaggressions, abusive behaviour, and consistent undermining.

At this stage, the Complainant began to realise that the Director and the new CWI Chairperson Ms Mary O’Donoghue (a close friend of Ms A’s) appeared to be prioritising Ms A’s interests and wellbeing over her own.  On 17th July 2023, the Complainant received a phone call from the Director at 9:00 a.m., informing her that Ms A had taken two weeks of sick leave.

During Ms A’s absence, on 3rd August 2023, the Complainant met the Director and they discussed the issues again. The Complainant reiterated that she had no desire to escalate the matter and would be satisfied if Ms A’s behaviour changed upon her return. She again stated that no apology or formal acknowledgement was necessary.  A few days later, the Director contacted the Complainant and informed her that Ms A, far from indicating a willingness to change her behaviour, was now making unspecified allegations against the Complainant and demanding an apology.

On 31st July 2023, the Complainant was informed that Ms A’s sick leave was to be extended.

 On 3rd August 2023, Anastasia Crickley emailed the Complainant, suggesting a meeting with an independent person. The same offer was made to Ms A. The Complainant, in her response, expressed horror that her complaint was not being taken seriously and was instead being treated as an issue of “workplace relations” rather than abusive behaviour. The Complainant requested that the abusive behaviour be addressed first.

On 10th August 2023, Ms A returned to work. Immediately upon her return, Ms A sent the Complainant a series of emails in an abusive tone, challenging the fact that the Complainant had continued to work during her absence. This further undermined the Complainant, who was deeply upset at the prospect of Ms A’s abusive behaviour resuming.

The Complainant emailed the Director on 10th August, forwarding two email threads from Ms A, and requested that the Director ask Ms A to allow her to carry on her work without interference. When the Complainant next met the Director, she acknowledged for the first time that “there was a problem.”

 On 8th August 2023, the Complainant received an email from the Director asking if she would agree to an “initial separate informal meeting with an independent person so that any and all concerns you have can be discussed.”  Without waiting for the Complainant’s response, the Complainant was informed that the CWI Staff and Finance Subgroup had appointed an outside consultant to facilitate a mediation process. The terms of reference for the process indicated that the issue was being framed as a “disagreement” between Ms A and the Complainant, rather than the serious abusive behaviour the Complainant had disclosed.

The Complainant sent a detailed summary of Ms A’s behaviour to the Director. The Complainant also wrote to the Staff and Finance Subcommittee, requesting that the terms of reference be amended to appropriately address the substantive issues she had raised. The Complainant stated that, if amended, she would be willing to participate in the process.

In emails and conversations with external consultants, the Complainant repeatedly emphasised her concern that the process proposed was underestimating, misinterpreting, and reducing her complaint of abusive behaviour. She stated that this issue was not equivalent to the issues that Ms A and the Complainant allegedly had regarding each other’s work. The Complainant agreed to participate in any process addressing work-related disagreements after her primary complaint was dealt with.

The external consultants informed the Complainant via email that the agreement of both parties was not in place. Ms A had refused to participate. The consultants proposed a “systems review” approach. The Complainant felt this was wholly inadequate and ignored the substantive issues of abusive behaviour she had disclosed.

The Complainant emailed members of the CWI Staff and Finance Subgroup, summarising the issues to date. She explained that she had sought to resolve matters as informally and low-key as possible, genuinely believing that if Ms A were made aware of the behaviour, she would stop. The Complainant reiterated that she did not seek an apology or personal acknowledgment—she simply wanted Ms A’s behaviour to cease.

The Complainant requested that the Staff and Finance Subgroup take immediate action to resolve the matter and put measures in place to ensure that she was no longer exposed to the abusive behaviour of Ms A. Specifically, she asked that Ms A be required to refrain from attending meetings where the Complainant was present. The Complainant noted that she had already made this request, and it had not been implemented. The Complainant reiterated the need for urgent and appropriate steps to address the issue and highlighted that the proposed “systems review” process was not fit for purpose. Two Directors acknowledged the Complainant’s email, but all others ignored it. None of the Directors responded to the substantive issues raised.

The Complainant received an email from the external consultants, stating:

“The agreement of both parties is not in place to meet in a plenary or shuttle facilitated discussion to explore achieving a mutually agreed and possible resolution to the issues in dispute. For this reason, and so that I may understand more completely the behaviours and any other relevant matter of concern to you and how you wish to see them addressed/resolved, as I am required to do under the terms of reference, I am inviting you to complete and return the attached systems review questionnaire to me.”

The Complainant responded, stating that while she was happy to engage in a systems review when appropriate, “it would be inappropriate at this stage while my disclosure of abusive behaviour remains unaddressed.”

The Complainant received an email from the Director expressing concern about the Complainant’s 24th September email to the Staff and Finance Subcommittee. The Complainant responded to express her deep concern that the Director was failing to adequately or appropriately appreciate the serious nature of the abusive behaviour she had reported. The Complainant reminded the Director that it was the Directors’ legal responsibility to ensure a safe and respectful working environment.

Around this time, the Complainant observed a distinct change in the Director’s treatment of her. It was clear to the Complainant that she was upset that she had emailed the Central Group (Board of Directors). This was evidenced in a note inadvertently sent by the Director to the Complainant.

The Director emailed the Complainant asking whether she would be open to mediation. She also stated that the secondary informal process had been paused to prioritise the allegations raised against Ms A. The Complainant welcomed the commitment to address her concerns but requested to see and agree the terms of reference for the process.  However, the scant terms of reference provided to the Complainant suggested that this process was no different from what had been proposed previously. The Complainant emailed the Staff and Finance Subcommittee, requesting a more substantive framing and further detail about the proposed process. The Complainant stated that only then could she confirm her participation.

On 29th September 2023, the Complainant emailed the Director and the Staff and Finance Subcommittee again, requesting that Ms A refrain from attending any meetings at which the Complainant was present. Despite having already made this request, the Complainant noted that a further meeting had been scheduled for the following Monday on the same project and Ms A was set to attend. The Complainant explained that Ms A’s behaviour at these meetings consistently undermined her, particularly as she was the lead on the projects concerned.

The Director wrote to the Complainant, stating that she had been appointed as line manager for both the Complainant and Ms A. The Director also stated that she would be the liaison person for the complaint process. The Complainant requested, that the Director step aside from her role as liaison person and that a different liaison be appointed for each member of staff. The Complainant received an email from the Director, stating that the Central Group fully endorsed her work and her role as line manager for both members of staff.

On 6th October 2023, the Complainant received a long email from the Director outlining a proposed mediation process and, if this was unacceptable, a formal investigation. The Director also reaffirmed her role as line manager. The Director requested a response by 10th October 2023, despite knowing the Complainant’s work schedule for that week. On 9th October 2023, the Complainant emailed to request an extension to provide a considered response.

An extension was granted until 16th October 2023. The Complainant subsequently wrote to the Director, pointing out that, in her role as line manager, the Director was fully aware of the unsustainable workload being imposed on the Complainant. The Complainant noted that there was no justification for the urgency of this matter, particularly given the delays and lethargy that had characterised the process over the previous months. The Complainant repeated her request for a separate line manager.

On 16th October 2023, the Complainant received an email from a member of the CWI Board of Directors. At an event, the Complainant had taken the opportunity to brief this Director on the situation. The Director sent a summary of their conversation to the Complainant and agreed to raise the matter at the next meeting of the Staff and Finance Subcommittee. Despite requests, the Complainant never received any follow-up or feedback on this matter.

In emails the Director informed the Complainant that CWI had decided to move towards a formal investigation. This was without waiting for the Complainant’s response to the suggestion of mediation. After a very confusing email exchange, the Complainant stated that while she remained confused, she would set these aside given that the investigation was about to comment. 

On November 8th the details of the process were emailed by the new external consultants employed to conduct the investigation to the Complainant.

The complainant and Ms A were given a deadline to have their written complaints to the Investigator.  Given the level of work that had been assigned to the Complainant, she was forced to seek an extension to this deadline.  In October 2023, Community Work Ireland (CWI) was notified of an audit to take place. This audit should have been a shared responsibility between the Complainant and Ms A. However, the task was left solely to the Complainant. This added significantly to the already heavy workload imposed on the Complainant at that time.

During the audit process, the Complainant repeatedly requested information—such as timesheets, medical certificates, phone bills, and other standard documents—from Ms A in relation to her sick leave. Ms A refused to properly provide this information despite several requests. The Complainant had evidence that Ms A had been working during her official sick leave and suspected this was the reason the required certificates were withheld.

On 1st December 2023, the Director emailed the Complainant and Ms A, stating that, due to her role as designated by the Central Group, the Complainant was to forward the Auditor’s details to her so that documents related to Ms A could be separately uploaded. The Complainant was shocked at this unprecedented response. The Complainant replied to both the Director and Ms A, requesting that the Director provide a written note confirming that the Complainant, as the person responsible for responding to the audit, had requested this information multiple times but that Ms A had refused to cooperate. This request was ignored. The same day, as her request had been ignored, the Complainant informed the Auditor that she had tried to gather the required information but that documents related to Ms A would be sent directly by the Director.

The Complainant emailed the CWI Treasurer, to update her on the audit. She forwarded the emails showing the repeated requests for information and clearly stated that Ms A was refusing to cooperate with the audit process and was being supported in this by the Director.

The Director emailed the Complainant, stating that, moving forward, the Chairperson would sign all documentation relating to projects. Furthermore, the Director and/or another director had contacted the Department of Rural and Community Development without the Complainant’s knowledge. This marked a deliberate deviation from normal practice and undermined the Complainant’s professional role and relationships.

The Director emailed the Complainant to inform her that the next Central Group meeting would take place without her or Ms A being present. In the same email, the Director redistributed the Complainant’s work without consultation.

The Complainant had been heavily involved in the Civic Forum, having worked extensively on its organisation and agenda. Ms A was now assigned to this work, while the Complainant was instructed to focus on the Social Forum. This unilateral reassignment was both unprecedented and unexplained.  On 10th November 2023, the Complainant responded to this email, stating that she had not been made aware of the Central Group meeting and highlighting the lack of consultation regarding the redistribution of her work.

In a separate email, the Complainant set out her concerns about the Director’s arbitrary decisions and sought a copy of the terms of reference for the Director’s new role as line manager. The Complainant also asked for clarification on the extent of powers delegated to the Director and for a process to voice objections to her decisions.

The Complainant reiterated her long-standing objection to the Director’s dual role as liaison person for the dispute and line manager, particularly given the close personal relationship between the Director and Ms A. These concerns were ignored.

On 21st November 2023, Ms C emailed the Complainant to again confirm that the Director would direct her work. The Complainant responded, repeating her request for the terms of reference and for clarity on how decisions were being made. These requests were ignored.

 On 23rd November 2023, the Complainant discovered a late draft of Ms A’s complaint on the joint CWI server. The draft contained comments from the Director of the National Women’s Council. The Complainant was deeply upset by the spurious nature of the complaint, which she felt did not justify the nearly year-long abusive behaviour she had endured.

On 24th November 2023, the Complainant submitted her formal complaint to the independent investigator.

Following multiple requests for updates, on 7th December 2023 the investigator emailed the Complainant, stating that Ms A had tendered her resignation and would not be pursuing her complaint. As a result, it was “no longer procedurally possible” to continue either investigation.

On 6th December 2023, the Director emailed the Complainant to confirm Ms A’s resignation and the Central Group’s agreement to extend Ms A’s notice period until 31st January 2024. The Director added that all current management arrangements would remain in place.

On 11th December 2023, the Complainant emailed all members of the Central Group with a copy of her formal complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with the termination of the independent investigation due to Ms A’s resignation.

The Complainant requested that her complaint be read into the minutes of the next Central Group meeting and that she receive confirmation this had been done. She reiterated her objections to the Director’s dual role as line manager and liaison, and again raised concerns about her treatment throughout the process.

On 18th December 2023, the Chairperson replied, acknowledging receipt of the Complainant’s email. The Chairperson stated that the Central Group would not revert until early 2024 and reminded the Complainant that she was expected to “respect the status” of the Central Group and its appointed representatives. The email also directed the Complainant to send all further correspondence to the Company Secretary only. The Complainant responded, expressing deep disappointment that her urgent request for the appointment of a new line manager had been ignored. She noted the tone of the email, the unprecedented language used, and the ongoing obfuscation of Ms A’s actions. The Complainant also clarified that, as the Directors shared legal responsibility as employers, she would continue to communicate directly with them to ensure they had accurate information.

On 22nd January 2024, the Complainant wrote to the Chairperson and the Central Group, requesting an update on her complaint submitted on 11th December 2023. She pointed out that, apart from an initial acknowledgment, she had received no further response to date. The Complainant asked, in the interest of natural justice and fair procedure, for a substantive response within ten working days. On 24th January 2024, the Complainant received an email from the Chairperson stating that it was not appropriate to progress the investigation, as Ms A had withdrawn from the process and had resigned.

The email further stated that the Central Group “reassures you that, in light of there being no further working relationship between yourself and Ms A, the source of your complaints regarding Ms A will no longer be an issue, and any potential health and safety matters for you regarding Ms A’s alleged behaviour no longer present a risk.”

At the end of the email, there was a brief mention that the Central Group needed to review CWI’s workload and organisational developments before deciding on recruiting for another Joint National Coordinator. The Complainant would be informed after the review was completed.

On 31st January 2024, the Complainant received another email from Ms C. In this email, Ms C expressed the Central Group’s concern about the Complainant’s 22nd January email sent to all members of the Central Group. The Chairperson stated that the email contained sensitive information about members and staff and was circulated to an email address that was no longer in use by a Central Group member.

The Chairperson stated that this may have caused a GDPR breach and added:

“Should the Central Group continue to have concerns regarding the response to such measures, we will have to progress them more formally.”

The Complainant was deeply upset and understood this email as a threat, suggesting that if she continued to pursue her complaints, she would face formal disciplinary procedures.

On 12th February 2024, the Complainant responded to the Chairperson. She stated she was shocked at the accusation of a GDPR breach and at the implication that she was responsible for it. The Complainant clarified that it was the Directors’ responsibility to update their contact details when they changed. She further noted that she had never been informed of any such change, although both the Chairperson and the Director were aware of the issue.

The Complainant described the tone of the email, with its repeated references to “instructions” and the threat of progressing matters formally, as “inappropriate, unwarranted, and deeply upsetting.”

 What followed was a series of actions by the Director and the Chairperson that left the Complainant in no doubt that they were attempting to force her to leave her position. These actions included:

•                 Petty Incidents: The Complainant was instructed to remove the title “National Co-Ordinator” from her biography on the CWI website.

•                 Exclusion from Strategic Processes: The Complainant was deliberately excluded from the review and strategic planning process of CWI. She was only provided with the opportunity to participate in a one-to-one interview with the reviewer, offered at the last minute under time pressure.

•                 Exclusion from Meetings: Contrary to organisational norms, the Complainant was excluded from all CWI Central Group meetings and subgroup meetings. She was not informed of the meetings, not asked for agenda items, and did not receive meeting notes or minutes. This exclusion began in June 2023 when the Complainant raised her complaint against Ms A

•                 Micromanagement: The Complainant was subjected to an unprecedented level of micromanagement by the Director. Her work and decisions were consistently questioned, even when previously sanctioned or approved by the Director herself or by the relevant CWI Working Groups.

Despite emails from the Director stating that the Complainant would not have to take over Ms A’s work, the Complainant’s workload increased significantly.

At Christmas 2023, the Complainant, who had historically received a Christmas bonus, was offered an amount significantly lower than that given to another CWI employee with far fewer years of service and less responsibility. The Complainant requested a rationale but was ignored and refused the payment. Soon after, the same employee received a cost-of-living salary increase, which was not offered to the Complainant.

The Complainant was deliberately kept uninformed about recruitment plans to fill Ms A’s vacant position, despite the impact on her own role. All her requests for updates were ignored.

On 15th May 2024, the Complainant noticed a backlog of emails slowing the CWI server. As she had done on previous occasions, she logged into the web-based version of the email system to clear them. Upon accessing Ms A’s inbox—approximately three months after Ms A’s resignation—she discovered an email in Ms A’s deleted folder.

The email, from the Director to Ms A and the first external consultant, contained a copy of a confidential email the Complainant had sent to the Central Group. This email included her complaint against Ms A and referenced the poor management of the Director and the Chairperson.

The Complainant was deeply upset and felt betrayed by this discovery, which confirmed her suspicions that the Director had been sharing confidential information with Ms A.

On 22nd May 2024, the Complainant tendered her resignation with immediate effect, citing the abusive working environment and including a supporting letter from her GP. The Chairperson issued a brief response, and no other members of the Central Group reached out to acknowledge the Complainant’s contribution, inquire about her wellbeing, or wish her well.

The Chairperson issued an email to CWI members announcing the Complainant’s resignation. The email made no reference to her contributions or years of service to the organisation, despite widespread recognition and plaudits for her work from colleagues over the years.

On July 2nd, the complainant was informed by several CWI members that Ms A had been reinstated as National Director of CWI.

The complainant was never furnished with a current contract of employment despite requesting same on many occasions.  She was not furnished with any Grievance Procedure.  She requested ‘fair procedures and natural justice’ from the Respondent but was denied same. The Respondent undermined the complainant’s role and once Ms A resigned it sought to make her position untenable by increasing her workload, and undermining her role.

The Director had been sharing confidential information with Ms A.  This evidences a breach of trust and confidence, which is a fundamental breach of contract between and an employer and an employee.  The Complainant’s complaint was not handled properly.  She reached out on many occasions to the Board but was not given any satisfactory responses.   

The Director being appointed as Line Manager and also the liaison person for the complaint was not appropriate as she is close personal friends with Ms A.   This is a clear conflict of interest.

The Director intermeddled in the Audit which caused the complainant considerable upset and distress.  The Respondent undermined the complainant’s role by contacting the Department of Rural and Community Development directly, without her knowledge.  This also undermined her professional relationships.

Ms A resigned to avoid participating in the investigation and her complaint was a vexatious one.  The Complainant was forced to resign on the 22nd May, 2024 and Ms A was re-instated as sole National Co-Ordinator prior to the 2nd July, 2024.

In 2014 CWI received core funding under the Scheme of Supports for National Organisations and decided to recruit for the role of National Co-Ordinator. The Complainant and Ms A were appointed following an open recruitment process as Joint National Coordinators in January 2015. They shared the role of National Co-Ordinator between them, each working in a Part-time basis (2.5 days/ 17.5 hours per week). The contract was subject to funding. Both were employed at the same time and on an equal footing, splitting one full time position.  

Both staff members received a contract of employment dated 1st January 2015. The Complainant signed a copy of the contract. CWI therefore strongly refutes the allegation that the Complainant was not provided with a Contract of Employment. Furthermore, there is no record of the Complainant making repeated requests for a copy of her contract of employment, and there was no reason as to why CWI would not have provided this contract if requested to do so. A copy of the contract was also retained on CWIs system that the Complainant had access to.

The shared office base was in Galway, but during Covid in 2020, by agreement both staff began working from home while also engaging in person with groups and organisations CWI worked with. In effect both staff  therefore worked remotely from 2020 and had significantly less face-to-face contact.

As part of her employment duties, the Complainant offered and undertook to manage the accounts directly on behalf of the Finance and Staff subcommittee. In spite of numerous verbal requests to alter these arrangements and share this responsibility as CWI’s work grew, the Complainant  continued with this even when out on sick leave from Sept/Dec 2022 and upon her return to work in  December 2022. CWI is not aware of the nature of the Complainant’s illness over this time, and she returned to work being certified fit to do so, initially on a shortened week during December 2022. It is understood that the Complainant was registered as the sole user for online access to some bank and Revenue accounts, and she did not seek to have this responsibility transferred or shared.

In 2022 CWI was awarded a contract to support the Community Development Programme involving an increase in work commitments. Both staff requested and received an increase in wages and hours. Both the Complainant and Ms A reported directly to the Central Group, and/or Directors appointed by the Central Group. Neither the Complainant nor Ms A raised any matter about the other with the Central Group until a phone call from the Complainant to the then Chairperson in June 2023. 

The Complainant was on sick leave from September 2022 until the beginning of December 2022. Contact between the Complainant and CWI did occur during the Complainant’s absence where Ms Crickley (the Director) met with Complainant to offer support during this time. CWI facilitated changes in the Complainant’s proposed dates to return to work where the Complainant would have notified Ms A on a number of occasions that she was due to return, but at last minute would postpone this planned return.

CWI does not accept that a significant amount of the Complainant’s work remained outstanding upon her return, and this statement is contradictory to the Complainant supporting the offering of extra pay to Ms A for the work Ms A had completed in the Complainant’s absence.

The Complainant Regarding the Handling of the Complainant’s Complaint Concerning Ms A’s Alleged Behaviour.

CWI is not aware that the Complainant began to notice changes in Ms A’s behaviour towards the Complainant. Nor did the Complainant raise such concerns directly with Ms A at the time.  It is CWI’s position that it was never notified of any such concerns or of their nature at the time, or at any stage between December 2022 and 23rd June 2023. 

CWI was not aware of the exchange of WhatsApp messages between the Complainant and Ms A leading up to the Social Inclusion Forum meeting on 1st June 2022. The Complainant was not leading the whole event, which is led by the Department of Social Protection with CWI as one of two additional partner organisations playing a support role. CWI now notes that in reading the email exchange as presented the Complainant’s submission it appears both parties seemed frustrated with each other around that event.

CWI was not aware that the Complainant viewed emails to her on 23rd June 2023 from Ms A as being aggressive and hostile.  A reading of those emails indicates a difference of opinion existed between both the Complainant and Ms A about issuing a draft of the Annual Report to CWI Chairperson. It appears the antecedent to this exchange is that the Complainant issued a draft foreword for the annual report to the Chair and Ms A expressed a dissatisfaction with the Complainant for issuing this without first discussing with Ms A, who normally would have had an input. 

The Complainant subsequently contacted the Chairperson “providing a brief summary” of ongoing issues on 23rd June 2023. The complainant wanted her concerns logged but stated that it was not a complaint. The Chairperson then advised another Central Group member with considerable HR experience about this call. The Complainant had also asked the Chairperson to tell the Director about the call. Significantly it was the Chairperson’s understanding that the call from the Complainant was not a complaint but where she wanted the matter dealt with by way of an apology from Ms A. The Chairperson shared this information with the Director, and taking the concern raised by the Complainant on 23rd June 2023 seriously, the Director undertook to inform Ms A and to let the Complainant know she was doing so.

Between 23rd June 2023 to 10th December 2023 CWI actively engaged with the Complainant and Ms A. As both were working from their homes, the one-to-one meetings between the Complainant, Ms A and the Director took place in cafes as agreed by all parties. From the outset in meetings with the Director the Complainant dismissed any possibility that Ms A could have anything to say other than present an illegitimate attempt to counteract the Complainant’s issues. The Director also spoke with Ms A who informally submitted that she could not trust the Complainant as a work colleague and that working relations had broken down. 

During these discussions with the Complainant, the Director formed the view that the Complainant was insistent Ms A’s alleged behaviour towards her was the issue that needed to be acknowledged by Ms A, and the Complainant was not prepared to engage in any process with Ms A until Ms A acknowledged her alleged behaviour.  

Both staff organised and participated in CWI AGM on 30th June 2023, and the Director observed that the behaviour between both employees appeared strained which she shared with the Complainant who said that things had improved and were ok.  

On 10th July 2023 Ms A advised the Director that due to the stress she was under, brought home by the breakdown in relations with the Complainant, and the Complainant's way of relating to Ms A as a colleague, she needed to go to the doctor. Ms A subsequently provided a sick cert, and the Director informed the Complainant of Ms A’s sick leave.

The Director brought the issues between staff to CWI Staff and Finance Committee where they were discussed, and it was also agreed that the Central Group would be advised of the issue once an informal process between the staff members was completed.  In the meantime, it was also agreed to inform the Central Group that resources could be needed for external advice being sought regarding the matters at hand. Initially CWI encouraged both the Complainant and Ms A to seek to resolve the issues between them.

The Director spoke with the Complainant. The Complainant advised the Director that she was seeking acknowledgement from Ms A about her alleged behaviour towards the Complainant and wanted this alleged behaviour to cease.

The Director then spoke with Ms A who advised that she also has concerns about the Complainant’s behaviour towards her. The Director shared Ms A’s response with the Complainant on 14th July 2023. The Director was satisfied that both parties were now aware of each other’s perspectives.

In light of the fact that both the Complainant and Ms A had raised concerns about each other’s behaviour, the Director suggested mediation as a way forward.  However, both parties rejected informal mediation. 

On 14th July 2023 the Director spoke again with the Complainant, and whilst the Director does not accept the Complainant’s comments in her submission to the WRC about this discussion, the Director did speak again with Ms A in an effort to progress matters. 

CWI strongly refutes the Complainant’s contention that the Director and the Chairperson prioritised Ms A’s interests and wellbeing over that of the Complainant. CWI was acutely aware of the rights of both parties to fair procedures and due process and was therefore carefully navigating through the situation that had emerged whilst remaining focussed on addressing the matters as reasonably as possible. In effect CWI was now dealing with two informal complaints from each of its employees who were working in a significant shared national role. It is CWI’s position that a key barrier to progressing the matter was the Complainant’s insistence that Ms A should, prior to anything else, recognise her alleged attitude towards the Complainant. Any delays in progressing matter were not of CWI’s making.

On 17th July 2023 Ms A took sick leave stating stress as being the reason for her absence. Consequently, CWI was increasingly conscious of its obligation to both. The Complainant was advised by the Director that Ms A had taken sick leave.  

On 28th July 2023 CWI wrote to Ms A acknowledging her sick leave and seeking to reassure Ms A of CWI’s intention to progress the concerns of both staff members. 

The Director spoke with the Complainant on 2nd August 2023, and forwarded her an email on 3rd August 2023, and  met with the Complainant again on 3rd August 2023.  There is nothing in this correspondence that indicated CWII was not interested in seeking to resolve the Complaint’s concerns. To the contrary this correspondence, and indeed all correspondence to the Complainant on this matter, is sensitive to the issues at hand, and seeks to reassure her that the matters are being dealt with. As acknowledged in the Complainant’s submission to the WRC, the Complainant maintained at this meeting that  she “had no desire to escalate the matter and would be satisfied if “Ms A” behaviour changed  upon her return to work”. This position of seeking to only have her concerns addressed first remained a constant position being held by the Complainant despite the efforts of the Director and CWI to progress matters.  Notwithstanding this CWI made itself available to the Complainant to progress matters informally with her.

As a consequence of neither party agreeing to meet to seek a resolution of the matter, the Director sought advice from an external HR Consultancy, who advised CWI of the steps set out in S.I. No. 674/2020 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work) Order 2020 (The Code of Practice).  As the offer of mediation had not been progressed by the parties CWI was advised to follow the guidelines as set out in SI  674/2020 and consider progressing matters through a secondary informal process. It should also be noted that at this point in time neither the Complainant nor Ms A had formally submitted a complaint, and that the Complainant was holding the position that she was not seeking a formal investigation or apology from Ms A but merely wanted Ms A to cease the alleged behaviour.   

On 8th August 2023 the Director wrote to the Complainant acknowledging the issues discussed at the meeting of 3rd August 2023, and advising the Complainant  “As from the outset your well-being is very important for us. I need to re-assure you that there is no intention and no attempt by myself and the F and S colleagues to minimise or ignore the allegations you’ve made”. This correspondence further advised “The purpose of the initial separate informal meeting with an independent person is so that these and all and any other concerns you have can be discussed in confidence, with that person offering us advice regarding the next steps and what might be possible and required”. CWI had discussed the matter and was of the view that both parties had raised concerns about the other and therefore CWI had an obligation to address the entirety of the situation. 

The Complainant responded stating, inter alia “I really appreciate the your efforts and those of (the Finance an Staff Committee) in this matter and I truly regret that we are all in this situation… particularly ..However I am concerned that the complaint that I have made is being underestimated and reduced to the same level as the issues that (Ms A) and I seem to have about each other’s work. These are not the same issue; they are not on the same level and they require separate processes to work through. With the greatest of respect, I think in trying to be fair to all, you are being unfair to me…. For requesting that the first of the issues, the abusive behaviour of my colleague towards me, is dealt with first. If that issue is resolved satisfactorily, I would be happy to engage in a process as outlined below to try to resolve the secondary come up work related issues.” The Complainant signed off by stating “Thank you again for your efforts”. CWI submits this contemporaneous comment does not reflect the tenor of the Complaint submitted to the WRC.  The Complainant is acknowledging the efforts CWI is involved in to progress her complaint, but on the other hand is not accepting that Ms A has also raised issues about the Complainant and appears to be seeking matters to be resolved on her terms by disregarding the concerns raised by Ms A.  

It is CWI’s position that throughout the process CWI was working continuously to have the issues dealt with, and the that the complaint as submitted to the WRC, asserting that CWI failed in its responsibilities to the Complainant, is not credible, and certainly is not reflected in the correspondence it had received from the Complainant at the time.

In any event as the parties were not in a position to resolve the matter informally, Ms J was appointed as the nominated person to conduct a secondary informal process. Terms of Reference were established for this process on 11th August 2023.  Both parties met with Ms J and were subsequently requested to fill out a questionnaire which the Complainant did not submit. As evidenced in the correspondence with the Complainant and CWI, Ms J was not able to progress the informal process. It is acknowledged both parties sought time to consider this option, and Ms A was on annual leave from 25th August to 15th September 2023. 

It is acknowledged that the Complainant was seeking to have the Terms of Reference for the process being facilitated by Ms J to be changed to refer specifically to Ms A’s alleged abusive behaviour rather than the matters being referred to as a disagreement.  As Ms J was appointed, and where part of the process was for Ms J to meet the parties to define the issues, CWI did not deem it appropriate to interfere in Ms J’s process at this point. Notwithstanding this, CWI was satisfied that as both parties had issues with each other it would have been inappropriate to focus the process on just one of the party’s complaints. 

On 20th September 2023 the Complainant advised Ms J that she remained willing to engage in a process that could accommodate her “more substantive issue of abusive behaviour” and that she was concerned this issue was being underestimated and reduced to the same level as the issues that Ms A had about the Complainant. It was the Complainant’s view at this point in time that the process being offered by Ms J did not accommodate the Complainant’s needs. 

On 21st September 2023 Ms J responded and sought to progress matters with the Complainant. Ms J’s email contained information on the detailed approach she was undertaking to ensure all of the parties concerns are identified and explored. 

On the 24th September 2023 the Complainant advised Ms J that it was inappropriate at this stage to progress with a meeting in circumstances where she believed her disclosure of abusive behaviour from Ms A remained unaddressed. On the same day the Complainant also emailed the Central Group raising objections to the process and referred to the Draft CWI employment handbook which sets out a commitment to fairness, dignity and respect for each employee, and states that any form of bullying would not be tolerated by CWI.  The Complainant submitted that there has been a failure to uphold this commitment, and stated it was unacceptable that four months after making a disclosure, that there had been no action to ensure that she had a safe place to work.

The first CWI became aware of the Complainant's concerns was on the 23rd June 2023 in a call to the Chairperson. At that time the Complainant advised the Chair that she was not making a formal complaint but was just logging her concerns. At no point up to now had the Complainant stated she felt she was being bullied. However, on 24th September 2023 the Complainant in an email to the Central Group was now requesting immediate and appropriate interventions to address and resolve this intolerable and unsustainable situation, and referred to bullying. The Complainant also requested that Ms A be required, as a matter of urgency, to refrain from attending any meetings where the Complainant had to be present.

On the 26th  September 2023 Ms J advised CWI that given the nature of the Complainant’s core concern that the secondary informal process was no longer appropriate, and in line with the Code of Practice suggested the Complainant consider the option of mediation, and in the event that either party declines mediation all informal resolution avenues would be exhausted and lead to a formal investigation process.

The Complainant advised on the 28th September 2023 that she would be open to mediation focussed on addressing her disclosure.

On 29th September 2923 Ms A advised CWI that she was taking sick leave. The Complainant also sent an email to CWI seeking for Ms A to be removed from meetings that the Complainant was planning to attend.

On 2nd October 2023 the Director emailed the two staff members with work instructions, advised that CWI was deeply concerned about the situation between the two staff members, and advised that CWI had appointed the Director to act as line manager and contact person for a limited period. 

On 6th October 2023 the Director emailed the Complainant outlining the situation, explained that an option of mediation remained open and advised if mediation did not resolve matters, then CWI would consider having the complaint formally investigated. On 9th October 2023 the Complainant advised she would consider the option of mediation and also requested another person than the Director be appointed to act as a liaison person between Ms A and CWI in the handling of the Complainant’s complaint. The Central Group had directed that the Director act as the liaison person /line manager for both in the interests of maintaining the organisations work and expedite a resolution to then issues at hand.  

On 9th October 2023 the Director emailed Ms A outlining the situation and that an option of mediation remained open and if mediation did not resolve matters, then CWI would consider having the complaint formally investigated. On 10th October 2023 Ms A advised that she would be prepared to pursue the option of Mediation.

On 11th October 2023 the Director respond asking the Complainant to confirm whether she wished to progress with the mediation by 16th October 2023, and the Director advised she would continue as the contact person and line manager.  In response the Complainant objected to a deadline for her response indicating she needed more time. In addition, the Complainant again sought for another liaison person to be nominated. Again, CWI submits that the Central Group had directed the Director act as the liaison person and did not view any conflict of interest existed.  CWI Central Group is made up of volunteers and the Director was in a position to be the contact person.  A review of the correspondence between CWI and the Complainant at this time, and throughout the process at this stage, indicates the fairness and sensitivity that the Director and the Staff and Finance Committee applied when liaising with the Complainant and Ms A at the time.  Furthermore, the Director was not a decision maker in any of the issues that were being progressed and would have no role to play in making decisions in any outcome of the process which would have rested with other members of the Central Group overall.  CWI maintains this represents that good governance of the HR matters were being applied. 

On 23rd October 2023 the Director sought an update from the Complainant. The Complainant Responded on 24th October 2023 that she was confused about the process CWI was suggesting she participate in and that it had taken longer to advance the matter than she had hoped due in part to work pressures. The Complainant sought clarification on what the process was, and also again sought to have the Director replaced as the liaison person for the handling of her complaint. The Complainant also advised that as Ms A had been informed of the nature of the Complainant’s complaint, the Complainant requested receipt of the complaint raised against her.  The Director responded on 25th October 2023, and advised the process being suggested was a return to the secondary informal process. On 6th November 2023 the Complainant responded, and again sought the emails of Ms A’s complaint. On 8th November 2023 the Director advised the Complainant that the process was now moving to the formal investigation stage. 

CWI appointed a different external consultant (Mr F) to conduct an independent investigation of the complaints. The Complainant submitted a written complaint to the Investigator. 

Ms A submitted her resignation letter on 6th Dec 2023, agreeing to remain in position until the end of January 2024. In her letter of resignation she thanked the organisation and cited that  ‘A number of weeks ago and prior to the initiation of the current investigation I informed you as a direct result of my feelings in this regard I was considering resigning my position with CWI…This current situation has forced me to take 2 periods of work-related stress leave in the past few months. I have never before been forced to leave work under stress induced sick leave. I continue to feel extremely stressed and worry about my ongoing health and wellbeing…. I now feel it is too difficult for me to continue to work in a shared role with my current colleague…’ The complainant was phoned by the Director to give her advance information of Ms As resignation prior to its wider communication.

On 7th December 2023 Mr F informed the Complainant that Ms A “has tendered her resignation and,  as a result, will not be pursuing her complaint against you  and will not be participating any further in the investigation processes.  As a result of this development, I wish to advise that it is no longer possible, from a procedural perspective, to continue with either investigation.”

Based on this decision CWI informed the Complainant that in light of the advice from Mr. F, the complaint could not be progressed. The Complainant was advised that as Ms A had resigned the source of the complaint no longer existed. 

Based on the above details, CWI maintains that from the time it was notified of the Complainants’ concerns on 23rd June 2023, and not 23rd May 2023 as maintained by the Complainant in her correspondence to CWI, CWI acted with due care and attention in seeking to deal with the matter in a reasonable manner.  It is evident that the Complainant did not understand that once her complaint was raised and Ms A advised she too had concerns, that CWI was obliged to afford both parties with fair procedure and due process.  The Complainant maintained she had a right to have her name vindicated. CWI submits that the nature of such complaints is that they can become a two-way street, and CWI sought to resolve the matter in accordance with the Code of Practice for dealing with grievances as set out in SI  674/2020.  It is apparent from a review of the Complainant’s correspondence throughout this time that the Complainant held an unreasonable expectation that her complaint had to be dealt with first and resolved to her satisfaction by Ms A acknowledging untested wrongdoings, before she would engage in any process to address Ms A’s concerns. CWI could never have acted in that manner and provide a process which ignored the constitutional rights of another employee.  

It is regrettable that the Complainant held this view and position, particularly in circumstances where Ms A was prepared to engage in an informal process or mediation in July 2023 and again in October 2023

CWI engaged with expert and experienced HR practitioners in providing the Complainant with opportunities to resolve the matter and maintains there were no acts or omissions on its behalf to ensure the Complainant, and Ms A were afforded every fair and reasonable opportunity to have the Complainant’s concerns dealt with and suggest in these circumstances, and how it acted, no employer would have been found wanting.

The Complainant Regarding the Alleged treatment of the Complainant by CWI

On 11th December 2023,  the Complainant sent an email to the Central Group expressing:

·        disappointment that the investigation did not progress;

·        that her complaint of abusive behaviour was not upheld; 

·        that she had been denied an opportunity to have her good name vindicated; and

·        attached her detailed complaint with this email requesting her email and submission be read into the minutes of CWI Central Group. 

The Complainant also submitted:

·        A further objection to the appointment of the Director as the liaison person for her complaint in circumstances where she maintained the Director was also acting as her line manager, stating the Director and Ms A had a close personal relationship.

·        A request for a copy of the terms of reference for the powers that were provided to the Director to act as line manager. 

·        That the Director had removed a project from the Complainant and given it to Ms A without discussion and where the Complainant’s protests were ignored That other examples of mismanagement were provided in her complaint document, which were continuing.

·        That the line management arrangement with the Director was unprecedented, whilst acknowledging they may have been some rationale for this when the dispute existed with Ms A before she resigned.

Under section 5.6 of its Constitution the Directors of CWI are entitled to employ such staff, and on such terms, as are necessary or desirable for the proper promotion of the Main Object.  In light of the circumstances that pertained at the time, which included increased work being generated due to extra funding; where the Complainant had highlighted she was overworked; where both staff had been on work related sick leave during the previous 12 months; and where the absence of each of the staff members impacted on the completion of work tasks,  CWI decided to allocate some tasks to Directors and also to allocate work due to the departure of Ms A until the structures of the organisation were reviewed ad properly resourced.

CWI therefore does not accept that the actions taken were to undermine the Complainant. On the contrary the CWG was facing a position where it would only have one member of staff after 31st January 2024, and with a Board of volunteer Directors and members to assist in filling the gap temporarily. It therefore had no option but to provide supports for the day-to-day work of CWI where possible, and in circumstances where the Complainant had put on record that she was overworked.

CWI refutes that it unreasonably removed projects from the Complainant as alleged.

The Complainant stated that she had sought but had not been provided with grievance procedures for how she could progress complaint for when disagreements occurred when the Director sought work to be done by the Complainant. The Complainant had been employed in CWI since 2008, with a break in her employment from 2012 to 2015. The organisation only employed two members of staff.  However, the Complainant had indicated a need to develop an Employment Handbook and completed this work. The Complainant had submitted the draft to CWI for approval. CWI therefore maintains that the Complainant was aware of how to raise a grievance having researched and drafted the Handbook. CWI also has an obligation by default to adhere to S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act 1990 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration) Order 2000. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that when first raising the complaint, and during 2023 the Complainant made it clear on a number of occasions she was not raising a formal complaint.  At no stage did the Complainant raise a formal grievance to CWI or put CWI on notice that if her matters were not formally addressed that she would feel there was a fundamental breach of trust in the relationship. CWI engaged in regular correspondence and discussion with the Complainant throughout her employment, and up to and including her resignation.  The Chairperson thanked the Complainant for her services and wished her well and acknowledged her work in correspondence at the time of the Complainant’s resignation. At no point did the Complainant state she felt the employment contract was frustrated, or that she was of the view that she felt the alleged acts or omissions of CWI made her position untenable. 

It is CWI’s position that it has not acted inappropriately at any stage in its affairs with the Complainant. The Complainant was a valued member of staff where significant time and resources were spent in seeking to address her concerns both informally and formally. The care and attention given to the Complainant is demonstrated in the emails shared with the Complainant throughout the process. Had she provided the CWI with reasonable notice that she believed her position was untenable CWI would have addressed these concerns with the Complainant. But that opportunity was never provided to CWI, and indeed it has since come to the attention of CWI that the Complainant had sought alternative employment with an organisation that has a relationship with CWI when she was still employed with CWI. It is a matter of fact that the Complainant resigned with immediate effect on the morning of 22nd May 2024. Later that same day it became public that the Complainant would commence as Coordinator of the National Partnership on 4th June 2024. In addition, the Complainant issued correspondence to a range persons and organisations associated with CWI at 08:32 hrs on 22nd May 2024 advising them that she was leaving CWI.

On 9th November 2023 the Director advised the Complainant that the Central Group meeting would take place without the Complainant or Ms A being present. The Director also redistributed work of the Civic Forum from the complainant to Ms A and where the complainant was instructed to focus on work relating to the Social Inclusion Form. This meant that each employee could be separately responsible for one national forum.

In response to this matter, CWI maintains it has a right to instruct staff members as appropriate to the work in hand.  In circumstances where both parties had expressed a concern working in each other’s company the Central Group deemed it appropriate not to require the Complainant or the Respondent to attend CWI meetings. 

The Complainant has stated that on 6th December 2023 the Director advised the Complainant that the Chairperson would sign all documents relating to projects, and in addition the Director and another member of the Central Group had contacted the Department of Rural and Community Development (the Department) without the Complainant’s knowledge which was a departure from normal practice which undermined the Complainant.

Again, CWI maintains the Central Group has the authority to run the organisation as it deems fit. In circumstances where the Complainant was maintaining she was overworked, where the Complainant and Ms A had taken sick leave and where the two staff members were not working effectively together at that time, CWI deemed it appropriate for members of the Central Group to become more actively involved during a period of time when the organisation was under pressure. These arrangements stayed in place during 2024 and continued when the Complainant had resigned. Furthermore, direct contact between members of the Central Group and Department officials was not a deviation from normal practice where Central Group Members and the Director in particular would have regular contact with Department Officials and key persons in other organisations associated with CWI.

Meanwhile the Chairperson responded 2023 to the Complainant’s letter of 11th December 2023 on 18th December 2023. The Complainant was advised that her correspondence would be considered and confirmed to the Complainant that the Central Group had decided that the Director was to remain as the Complainant’s line manager. The Complainant was also advised that any further correspondence for the attention for the Central Group was to be submitted to the Central Group Secretary.  Furthermore, as the Staff and Finance Committee had been designated to deal with the complaint, CWI was of the view that the  sharing of sensitive information relating the complaint that could lead to formal procedures also had potential to create a conflict of interest for Central Group members in the event they might have to deal with any disciplinary matters that could follow a formal investigation.

The Complainant stated that she was unreasonably tasked with completing audit work for Pobal, and that the Director would upload documents relating to Ms A. The Chairperson’s email also advised the Complainant that any HR data relating to Ms A that was required for the Pobal audit would be uploaded by the Director.  CWI believed this was appropriate in light of complaints having been  raised by both parties, and in these circumstances,  it was not appropriate for the Complainant to have access to medical certificates and other personal/HR arrangements for Ms A. Accordingly, CWI had asked the Complainant not to deal with Ms A’s information, but continued to ignore this request, e.g. by seeking the information form CWI Treasurer on 5th December 2023 ad accusing Ms A of refusing to co-operate. It was for this reason the Director emailed the Complainant on 6th December 2023 advising her that moving forward the Chairperson would sign all documentation relating to the audit projects.

On 22nd January 2024 the Complainant emailed the Chairperson requesting a detailed response to her letter of 11th December 2023, and the Chairperson responded on 24th January 2024. The Chairperson clarified that the document provided by the Complainant was the same complaint that was submitted to the investigator and where the Complainant had already been told an investigation of the complaints against Ms A would nor progress as Ms A had had issued her resignation and therefore, on the advice from the investigator, the investigation was ended.  CWI also acknowledged that it advised the Complainant it would review the workload of the Complainant and refer to her before any recruitment decision is made regarding eh Employee’s vacancy.  As the Central Group was concerned with the future work emerging with new funding, and whether the arrangements for the role of National Co-Ordinator being shared between two persons was appropriate, it was considering the overall situation before making any decision.

CWI noted the Complainant’s email of 22nd January 2024 was circulated to all Central Group Members despite its earlier request that the Complainant was to issue such correspondence to the Central Group Secretary who would circulate it to Central Group members. The email of 22nd January 2024 had again contained personal and sensitive data that was issued an email sent to all members of the Central Group. CWI further noted that the email was sent to an email address no was longer used by a Board Member, as the person no longer worked at the email address.  This indiscretion was a concern that put CWI at serious risk of a data breach, where a person not connected to the Central Group or CWI responded to the email. This email should not have been sent to the email address in question and the error was compounded as the Complainant had been previously advised to address her submissions to the CWI company secretary or members of the Staff and Finance Committee only.

The Central Group therefore believed it was appropriate to put the Complainant on notice of this matter in light of the unprecedent occurrence, and where a disregard had been given to its earlier instruction. In these circumstances it was reasonable for the Chairperson to advise the Complainant  that if such a breach was to reoccur it may have to be dealt with more formally.  CWI has a concern that the Complainant in her submission to the WRC has indicated she accessed files which had been deleted belonging to Ms A held on the shared server and has referred to this practice in her submission.

Subsequently CWI engaged with the services of Mr R in February 2024 to review and make recommendations on the structures and processes necessary for CWI for the future. Mr R is an experienced organisational psychologist familiar with the work conducted by CWI. Mr R met with the Complainant to consider her observations as part of the review process.  Mr R issued his report on 1st  March 2024. CWI does not accept that the Complainant was excluded from this process and in particular refers to Mr R’s report which has an individual section on the Complainant’s input to the process. The CWI does not accept the Complainant’s assertion that it was attempting to force the Complainant from her position. 

The Complainant was asked to correct a change she made to her job title on CWI website, and to restate it as Joint National Co-Ordinator from National Co-Ordinator.  Changing the job title without the consent of the Central Group could imply an entitlement to a change in the terms and conditions of work. The Complainant was not excluded from the review and strategic planning process that was conducted by Mr R.  The responsibility of the Directors to establish the direction and future of CWI is established and enshrined in the organisation’s constitution and the responsibility for Directors of CWI.  Staff members do not have this function, although CWI did include the Complainant in the planning process as explained above.

The Complainant was not excluded from meetings, nor was she micromanaged.  It is a matter of fact that the Complainant had raised concern about her workload, and where the Complainant had also requested not to be placed in the same work environment as Ms A.  Similarly, Ms A had expressed a concern about working in the presence of the Complainant. To facilitate these requests, and in so doing to ensure neither staff member was treated more of less favourably than the other, CWI  revised the attendance of the staff members at CWI meetings, or other meeting where both parties may previously have attended together. This combined with revising the workload of the staff members did naturally impact on attendance at meetings. The Complainant retained the bulk of the work associate with the management of finances within CWI as part of this process. 

CWI acknowledges that when Ms A resigned a void existed which necessitated members of the Central Group to undertake some extra functions in order to minimise any potential pressure on the Complainant. The work was done by the Central Group Members in an unpaid capacity.  This inevitably would have placed extra pressure on everybody including the Complainant. CWI was acutely aware of the increased demands on everybody and was progressing its plans to reorganise structures and recruit extra resources. However, the Complainant tendered her resignation before the reorganisation had taken place. The reorganisation is continuing to this day.

CWI does not accept that the Complaint was left solely responsible for the Pobal Audit. CWI confirms that the Chairperson also took on responsibility for some of this work and the Director offered to attend in person the meeting with the auditors.

In response to the extra workload claimed by the Complainant, CWI requested the complainant not to take on Ms A’s work, the substance of which was in fact distributed to members of the Central Group. The Complainant retained responsibility for the CDP network and for duties relating to financial management.

CWI does not accept that Ms A received extra compensation when she completed extra work when the Complainant was on sick leave.  The issue was already being discussed by CWI and the Complainant made a case for Ms A to be paid extra for the work Ms A completed when the Complaint was on extended sick leave during 2022. Ms A did not receive extra pay, but did request and was granted extra leave.

CWI denies that any staff member was ever paid a bonus at Christmas. CWI, at its discretion, would have provided the staff members with a Christmas gift. In 2022 the gift was circa €400 for each of the two staff members. In 2023 the gift offer to both staff members was €100.

No other staff member of CWI was paid a cost-of-living salary increase.

In the period between mid to late March 2024 and when the Complainant resigned on 22nd May 2024, the Complainant took leave due to personal circumstances including bereavement leave, sick leave and annual leave due to her.

The filling of the vacancy created by Ms A resigning in December 2023 was subject to the outcome of the review completed by Mr R, and where CWI had to decide upon the most appropriate structures to resource the organisation into the future.  This decision is entirely within the remit of the Central Group of Directors and is not the Complainant’s responsibility.  Of course, the Complainant would have been informed when a decision had been made, however she resigned before that matter was finalised.  What transpired was the creation of a new role of National Director as a senior person with a different level of responsibility to the role of National Coordinator. The job was advertised, and the Complainant was welcome to apply for the role.  The fact is she did not apply.  Following a public advertisement a number of applications were received, one of which was the former employee (Ms A)  who was successful in the interview process and appointed to the role.

The Complainant submitted her resignation on 22nd May 2024. It is acknowledged that the Complainant did raise a verbal concern about Ms A on 23rd June 2023, stating at the time she was not making a formal complaint and was only seeking for Ms A to acknowledge her behaviour and to cease the alleged behaviour.  Ms A was met by the Director in early July 2023 to discuss the Complainant’s concerns, and at that time Ms A stated she also had concerns about how the Complainant was behaving towards her. Ms A took sick leave following discussing her concerns.

CWI did not doubt either staff members perception of their experiences of each other and when it realised the matters were serious immediately referred to a reputable add independent HR consulting firm.  CWI was correctly advised to refer to the procedures set out in SI  674/2020, and  CWI created a process to afford the parties with an opportunity to resolve the matter in accordance to the secondary informal process as set out in the Code of Practice.  Unfortunately, that process which was properly applied did not resolve the matter. The Complainant will be aware that her position throughout that process was to have her concern dealt with first before she would engage in seeking a resolution to Ms A’s concerns.  

As the informal process did not resolve matters, and the informal complaints were not withdrawn, CWI had no option other than to establish a formal investigation.  An experienced independent Investigator was appointed but Ms A resigned and the Investigator concluded that the Investigation could not progress under those circumstances.  This outcome was explained to the Complainant who still sought for her complaint to be progressed.  As there was no respondent, and where Ms A about whom the allegations were made against had resigned, CWI was advised that the alleged cause for the stress being experience by the Complainant was no longer a risk in the workplace and an investigation under such circumstances were not merited. 

Subsequently the Complainant continued to express her dissatisfaction about this decision and contended that the Director should no longer be her line manager and sought to have that Director removed from the reporting relationship.  CWI considered this request but maintained its decision for the Director to be the point of contact between the Central Group and the Complaint for the overseeing of her work. 

Whilst expressing her dissatisfaction with that decision, the Complainant never raised a formal grievance to CWI. During this time CWI was very conscious of the increased workload and was engaged in a process to restructure the resources that were required to deliver its outputs. The Complainant was consulted in that process but decided to leave CWI before that process was completed.  Before resigning the Complainant never issued a formal grievance. Furthermore, it is part of the Complainant’s Job Description to be responsible for ensuring CWI compliance and having in place all such governance requirements and for keeping the Central Group up to date on such matters which included the Employee Handbook, which had been drafted in 2021. 

CWI therefore submits that the Complainant resigned before exhausting all of the avenues open to her, and where many of the issue raised in her WRC Complaint are the first time CWI has been made aware of these concerns.

These concerns appear to be now focussed on how she perceived she was being managed from December 2023 to May 2024. Some of the issues raised by her in her WRC complaint were considered and responded to by CWI Chairperson.  It appears the Complainant was unhappy with those decisions which CWI maintains were reasonable under the circumstance. However she never formally raised a grievance to appeal those decisions and similarly harboured other concerns she has now submitted without formally presenting them to CWI as her employer to consider them at the time.

It is CWI’s position that as the Complainant was a valued and experienced member of staff and that, had CWI been provided with the opportunity to formally consider all of her concerns, it most likely that many of them could have been resolved. However, the Complainant resigned before exercising this right.

Complainant of Unfair Dismissal

Constructive dismissal cases are based on the entitlement test and the reasonableness test. Under the entitlement test the Complainant must succeed in arguing that she is entitled to terminate the contract on the grounds that her former employer has breached a fundamental condition that goes to the root of the contract. In general, this arises where the actions of the employer demonstrate to the Complainant that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract of employment. In effect the question is whether it was reasonable for the complainant to terminate her contract on the basis of the employer’s behaviour. 

Generally, the criterion regarding the behaviour of the employer is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the Complainant’s resignation, and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment.  In relation to the employer’s behaviour, this normally refers to the efforts that a complainant made to bring the matter to the employer’s attention and to have it remedied by means of the grievance machinery. Indeed, the EAT has made it clear in a series of decisions, as followed by the WRC Adjudication Service, that failure to use company procedures to address a grievance is a necessity in upholding complaints of Constructive Dismissal. In the absence of company procedures, and employer is expected to adhere to the processes as set out in S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act 1990 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration) Order 2000. 

CWI submits that it never prevented the Complainant from exercising her rights or never restricted her in raising an appeal to any of its decisions. In fact, CWI has demonstrated the lengths it has gone to when behaving reasonably to provide the Complainant with the opportunity to have her complaints against Ms A dealt with.  CWI would have similarly provided the Complainant with every reasonable opportunity to appeal its decisions regarding the handling of that complaint, and to also consider the litany of complaints she has now raised to the WRC after the resignation relating to the alleged acts of CWI and its Directors from December to May 2024.

CWI submits that as the Complainant  did not exercise her rights to raise a formal appeal about decisions made by CWI regarding her complaint against her work colleague,  or did not raise a formal grievance about the alleged acts of CWI and its Directors in relation  to how the Complainant alleged she was treated, and where many of the issues referred to in her WRC complaint are the first time notice has been given to CWI about these concerns.

The complainant is alleging that she had no alternative but to resign following her treatment by the respondent.  The respondent denies that it dismissed the complainant.

Section 2(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act defines a dismissal as including:

“The termination of a contract of employment by the employee (whether prior notice of termination was or was not given to the employer) in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled to terminate the contract without giving such notice, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee to do so …”.

It is clear from the complaint that the complainant regarded herself as having been constructively dismissed.  Where constructive dismissal is alleged the burden is on the complainant to show that she or he was justified in deciding that the actions of the respondent constituted a dismissal.

There are two tests, either or both of which may be invoked by an employee. The first test is generally referred to as the “contract” test where the employee argues “entitlement” to terminate the contract. The second or “reasonableness” test applies where the employees asserts that in the circumstances it was reasonable for him or her to terminate the contract without notice.

The contract test was described by Lord Denning M.R. in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] I.R.L.R. 332 as follows:

“If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself discharged from any further performance”.

This passage describes a situation in which an employer commits a repudiatory breach of contract. In such circumstances, the employee is entitled to accept the repudiation and consider him or herself dismissed. However, not every breach of contract will give rise to repudiation. It must be a breach of an essential term which goes to the root of the contract.

There is, however, the additional reasonableness test which may be relied upon as either an alternative to the contract test or in combination with that test. This test asks whether the employer conducts his or her affairs in relation to the employee, so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. Thus, an employer's conduct may not amount to a breach of contract but could, none the less, be regarded as so unreasonable as to justify the employee in leaving.

In the current case the Complainant has alleged a fundamental breach of contract i.e. unilaterally changing working terms, and secondly, that the behaviour of the respondent was unreasonable in addressing her bullying/harassment complaint. 

The respondent correctly argues that there is an obligation on the employee to use internal grievance procedures to attempt to remedy the issues causing concern.  However, this presupposes the existence of such procedures in the workplace and that they have been brought to the attention of the employee.  In evidence the respondent acknowledged that they did not have a formal written grievance procedure in place but that a draft procedure existed. At no stage did the respondent refer the Complainant to these draft procedures.  In these circumstances I don’t accept that the respondent can rely on the argument that the Complainant did not use available procedures.   

In evidence the respondent justified any changes in task distribution to the necessity to minimise contact between the Complainant and Ms A. This also included the assignment of Ms Crickley, a Director, as Line Manager.  In my view this was a reasonable response to the situation which had developed and could not be regarded as a fundamental breach of contract.  After the departure of Ms A, the organisation was considering reorganisation and it is understandable that they did not reverse the reporting relationship pending that review.  In any event the Complainant departed some four months later, having been unavoidably absent for some time during that period. I therefore conclude that there was no breach going to the root of the contract.

The complainant has argued that the handling of her complaint in relation to Ms A was not appropriate and that this, in part, led to her view that she had been constructively dismissed.  It is not for me to determine if the complainant was being bullied but rather to see how adequately the respondent dealt with the issues and whether this behaviour by the respondent justified the position of the complainant that she was constructively dismissed. The approach taken by the respondent in relation to the handling of that complaint was outlined in detail at the hearing and in submissions.  In my view the approach taken was substantially correct and included both an informal and formal attempt to resolve the situation.

It was unreasonable for the Complainant to insist that her issues took precedence in any process and would have to be dealt with first.  Her insistence that Ms A agree to change her behaviour was tantamount to asking Ms A to acknowledge that she was in the wrong. This was a naïve approach to engaging in a procedure designed to achieve a satisfactory outcome for all parties, including the Complainant. I don’t doubt the Complainant’s sincerity in how the interaction with Ms A affected her.  However, Ms A had also been negatively affected as is evidenced by her actions in both taking sick leave and eventually resigning.

 I am satisfied that the respondent put in place a reasonable procedure to deal with the issue, including in particular, paying an external consultant to examine all the issues.  The referral to external consultants should have meant that any concerns the Complainant had about the Director’s relationship with Ms A had been appropriately addressed.  I accept the rationale outlined by the respondent in relation to the necessity to adjust the responsibilities of both the Complainant and Ms A was appropriate in the circumstances. I also accept that it was not possible for the investigation to proceed when Ms A had resigned.

The second issue regarding the behaviour of the respondent which the Complainant is aggrieved about related to handling of the respondent to the issues raised in her email of 11th December 2023.  A lot of this email again related to her issues with Ms A, including a substantial attachment detailing the issues of concern.  However, in addition, she outlined concerns regarding the appointment of the same person as line manager and to manage the dispute and requesting that this assignment be discontinued.

The respondent continued with the Line Manager it had introduced and has argued that they did so because; “In light of the circumstances that pertained at the time, which included increased work being generated due to extra funding; where the Complainant had highlighted she was overworked; where both staff had been on work related sick leave during the previous 12 months; and where the absence of each of the staff members impacted on the completion of work tasks,  CWI decided to allocate some tasks to Directors and also to allocate work due to the departure of the Employee until the structures of the organisation were reviewed ad properly resourced.

CWI therefore does not accept that the actions taken were to undermine the Complainant. On the contrary the CWG was facing a position where it would only have one member of staff after 31st January 2024, and with a Board of volunteer Directors and members to assist in filling  the gap temporarily. It therefore  had no option but to provide supports for the day-to-day work of CWI where possible, and in circumstances where the Complainant had put on record that she was overworked.”

The Committee replied to the Complainant’s email on 18th December. I note that the committee consulted with the external investigator regarding the email of 11th December and was informed that it was the same complaint as had been made previously.  Therefore, the committee thought that the complaint had fallen by default due to the departure of Ms A.

The Complainant cited the report in relation to organisational reform including making her post redundant without this being communicated to her at the time.  The complainant referenced this as evidence of the poor behaviour by the respondent.  The respondent’s position is that it was not discussed with her due to her absence at the time.    The Complainant confirmed she did not see this report until January 2025.  Therefore, it could not have formed part of her reasoning for leaving as she was unaware of its existence at the time.  Similarly, in relation to the inappropriate email sent from the Director to Ms A in December 2023, the Complainant did not discover this email until 15th May 2024.  In evidence the Complainant confirmed that she had interviewed for a different position with a different employer in early May 2024.  Clearly therefore, she had determined to leave before the discovery of the offending email.  Again, Ms A was reemployed after the Complainant had left and therefore this could not have been part of her decision to leave.

Having reviewed all of the evidence, I do not find that the Complainant was constructively dismissed.

The complainant was not unfairly dismissed

Behaviour  and Constructive dismissal, fair procedures,