Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Betting Shop Manager

Gambling Organisation

Representatives

Jim Furey  Mandate Trade Union

Katie Nugent

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00003811

12/02/2025

The within matter concerns two interpersonal issues of between a district manager in the first instance and grievance on the part of the Shop Manager later and a concern raised in connection with another event in 2019

The worker sets out that several interactions between they and an Area Manager took place which left them feeling unsafe in and out of their workplace.

These interactions included an event which occurred outside their workplace and another occasion on an annual leave day resulting in the Area Manager approaching them on a public street in the City Centre. This was followed by the Area Manager making a complaint against them.

The complaint was investigated and the outcome cited that no further action should be taken against the Worker and that the matter did not warrant a disciplinary process that these allegations having been investigation were unsubstantiated

The Worker is left feeling concerned for their safety inside and out of my workplace. It is the Worker contention that the Employer has failed in their duty of care to them, and they are not being provided with a safe workplace and their dignity at work has been impacted.

The worker in conclusion sets out that the Employers Dignity at Work Policy covers Harassment and defines it as:

 “by the effect of the deed itself and the impact on the recipient rather than the intention of the perpetrator however normal levels of reasonableness will apply”

And

 “examples of unwanted verbal contact include unwelcome advances or repeated suggestions for unwanted social activities inside or outside the workplace."  

The Worker informed the hearing that there was a similar incident experienced by the Worker some years ago.

The Worker had a further grievance in how long it took to investigate their complaint as opposed to the original complaint against the Worker.

In finality, the Worker asks the Adjudicator to declare the Worker’s case to be well founded and direct the Employer to ensure the Worker’s safety.

The basic facts of the case are not disputed, there was a complaint against the Worker, which was investigated properly, and the complaints were unsubstantiated.

The second issue was the grievance from the Worker on the matter of feeling bullied and intimidated. The policy was applied, and the Worker opted for the formal procedure. There was a gap of 3 weeks from reporting to investigating and it was found that the matter could not be substantiated on the balance of probabilities.

A second grievance was lodged by the Worker against another employee who was the Appeal Manager. This was found to be misconceived and although there were possible grounds to consider it as malicious, the Employer chose to not follow this course.

The Employer sets out that the Worker had a full opportunity to state his case(s) and received the benefit of the procedures. They further set out that they have taken all appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the Worker and all employees. Further they remain committed to ensuring the health and safety of all employees.

The Employers asks the AO to find that the worker has the benefit of a safe working environment and that the matters raised have been fairly investigated

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

I requested a copy of the health and safety statement of the company be provided to me following the hearing and this was later provided.

There is a communication issue in this matter which will take time to heal. I cannot fault the processes of the Employer in this matter and, I believe, a full and fair investigation was afforded the Worker with a reasonable outcome on both matters.

I acknowledge the issue of the delay in the proceedings between the cases and it is unfortunate. However, the Employer addressed the matter at the hearing that such things are at the mercy of the prevailing workload. Nonetheless, it is a poor optic especially where there may be a disproportionate balance of power.

I note the matter of safety in and outside the workplace as an important principle, but in the absence of an adverse finding in the investigations there is a limited number of recommendations I can make. I would note the Employer submission that they take such matters seriously and believe that they are providing a safe workplace.

Where the Employer is clearly of a mind to understand and appreciate the significance of safety in such matters it will have little objection to the refresh of the relevant policies to staff in an anonymous and generalised manner within the organisation to remind them of the need to respect the privacy of employees and the safety of the same inside and outside the organisation in line with their own policies.

It is not appropriate for me to direct how this might be done without having more familiarity of the organisation and this should be left to the HR Department to ensure within the next three months.