Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Emily Maverley IBEC

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 - 00003912

05/03/2025

The Worker was employed with the Employer from 31 January 2022 until she resigned her employment on 7 February 2025.  She contended that she was bullied and harassed in the workplace and that the Employer failed to address matters appropriately.

The Employer refuted the claim in its entirety and instead submitted that the worker had failed to progress matters whilst in employment and to exhaust the available internal dispute resolution mechanisms.  In those circumstances it was the Employer’s position that that it was therefore not fair or reasonable to now rely on an external third party to resolve the dispute prior to engaging with the internal processes.

In her complaint form, the worker submitted that in the Summer of 2024, the Employer was severely understaffed from a supervisor point of view, and she had asked if she could be trained to be a supervisor.  She stated that during that time she was heavily overworked, critiqued on every little detail and barred on multiple occasions due to what the Employer deemed as not being good enough.

She stated that during this time, the only supervisor (Employee 1) was not up to standard and yet he wasn’t being challenged in any meaningful way.  She stated that he was constantly lazing around, not doing his duties and always on his phone and she stated that this was something the staff were consistently told was not allowed.  She stated that he wouldn’t even do his own tasks of counting and refilling stock. 

The Worker stated that her problems with him started after he left her to deep clean someone’s faeces covered underwear from the bathroom and in addition to clean the café and any mess he left while making drinks.  She stated that this all occurred in mid-September and that this was when the problems began.  She stated that she didn’t think it was really taken seriously by her manager (Manager 1).  She said she felt as though he only took what she said seriously because the day after Employee 1 made a cover supervisor from another store, Employee 2, do all his jobs.  She said she felt as though if she had not done that, Manager 1 would not have taken her issues seriously. 

The Worker stated that she consistently brought what he was doing wrong to the attention of Manager 1, over and over again, but that nothing was done.  She stated that eventually even the District Manager, knew things, but still nothing was done and that they kept describing it as though Employee 1 was still getting used to being a supervisor.  She claimed that Employee 1 had been a supervisor since March of that year.

The Worker stated that she was the only one to constantly critique him and even had to tell him to his face how he was not doing enough.  She stated that during these verbal confrontations, he would constantly respond “blah, blah, blah, yeah, yeah, yeah” and completely brush her off, not taking her complaints seriously.  She stated that this was in contrast to how he would talk to the male staff and more senior staff in a more respectful way,.  She stated that he rubbed her up the wrong way entirely especially when Manager 1 and the District Manager did start “getting on his case.”

She stated that things got worse, that he became even lazier and had near physical altercations with customers and that she had to be the one to save his skin and she stated that there was a negative review on google with him and her in the photo. 

The Worker stated that in early November the aggression between her and Employee 1 finally came to a head.  She stated that on one of the busiest days, he kept demanding that she do anything other than focus on customers and make their drinks.  She stated that she retaliated and told him that there wasn’t enough time to be focusing on other things besides serving customers.  She stated that he “got in my face” and began to say such things as “you never want to work with me, just leave, just get out”.  She stated that this was not the first time, that he had repeatedly “got in her face” before when she tried to confront him, to the point where she had to physically push him away to serve customers and she stated that he used this against her, saying that she was “never to touch him again”.  She stated that this occurred in late October.

The Worker stated that she lost it and said, “you know what (Employee 1), f…. you”.  She stated that she would admit that she should not have lost her cool, but she thought that what he did was far worse.  She stated that after this, he “body blocked” her, going so far as to nearly throw himself in the oven, to stop her from grabbing food from it.  She stated that this could be seen on camera.  She outlined that he continuously tried to push her off her shift, physically and verbally, and gave her no choice but to hide in the back.  She stated that she was sobbing and terrified and that she texted and called Manager 1 many times, not knowing what to do. 

The Worker outlined that in the end, Employee 1 was written up twice, once for always being late and then for the aforementioned incident.  She stated that she got one write up for cursing at him.  She also stated that he was to be demoted the moment additional supervisors were hired, but that once additional supervisors were in place, he was not demoted.  She stated that at the time of submission of her complaint, she was aware from visiting co-workers, that he was still working as a supervisor. 

The Worker stated that when planning on reporting the harassment, both Manager 1 and the District Manager discouraged her from it, saying that it would look bad for her as she wanted to be a supervisor.  She stated that she then didn’t make a complaint, because at the time she was really desperate to prove she could be the supervisor.  She stated that only a week later she was told she was not ready to be a supervisor, and that she was not emotionally mature enough.  She stated that she was advised that she should have spoken to him “not in front of the customers” and gotten out of his way, for example to go and sweep the café.  She stated that she tried to do that, but that Employee 1 took the broom from her. 

The Worker stated that she was punished more severely than he was, that he still had power and that she had to quit her job because of it.  She stated that not only that, but that the managers kept seeing this as two workers having an issue and not someone they chose to promote, abusing their power.  She stated that she wasn’t going to say that it came from a place of misogyny, but when seeing how he talked to other female co-workers, even they had noticed the strange tones he had taken with them, and how he would physically act around them, almost flirtatiously. 

The Worker stated that her complaint didn’t arise from that, as she was not in a position to prove it, but that it came from the genuine disrespect and disregard for her, physically and mentally, by her more senior managers.  She stated that she had been going to therapy for the last couple of months in relation to her issues and that Manager 1 knew about this, as she had requested to have Wednesdays off to attend treatment.  She stated that he knew her as someone who was mentally sensitive and did not even question what working with Employee 1 would do to her mental health.  She outlined that even after all of that, she was still put on shifts with Employee 1, despite telling him how uncomfortable and unsafe she felt around him.  She stated she was still being made to make that extra supervisor effort, plus effort in work, and she was still only being acknowledged monetarily for her additional duties.  She stated not only was that unfair, but it was unjust, and now that she had had time to really process it, she realised she didn’t leave the way she wanted to.

The Worker stated that she hoped the Adjudication Officer would take her complaint seriously as she firmly believed leaving Employee 1 in a position of power, let alone in a place where he had shown to try and physically intimate, react physically and verbally to complaints, and overall had not changed his behaviour, is a bad place to leave him.  She stated he needed to see consequences, more than just write ups that expire after six months.  She stated that something needed to be done, and she wanted compensation for that horrendous month, for what Employee 1, Manager 1 and the District Manager had put her through. 

Information provided by the Worker at hearing:

The Worker confirmed that she worked for the Employer from February 2022 until February 2025 and that she worked on a full-time basis during the last year.  She advised that she asked her manager if she could be trained as a supervisor and this was agreed.  Despite this she stated she was never trained and that she consistently made complaints about her supervisor, but that they were never addressed.  She stated that she was frightened and felt physically threatened by her supervisor and she had thought that her manager was bringing her concerns to the attention of the District Manager, but she later learned that he wasn’t.  She stated that she was advised not to make a complaint of harassment and that in the end she felt very dejected, as all her efforts in terms of training for promotion and trying to improve the working environment, were for nothing. 

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, the Worker stated that she consistently made complaints verbally and by text to Manager 1, and that Manager 1 advised her that he had informed the District Manager.  She stated that Manager 1 said that he and the District Manager said it would look bad for her, but she now understood that she was being misled by Manager 1.  She stated that she had no idea about the partner handbook and had only been given a contract and shown how to do the work. 

The Worker also stated that Manager 1 had informed her that he would mediate the matters and that he would look at the incident she described on camera, but that he had never done so and she felt that there was a bias towards the supervisor as Manager 1 had said to her that they were both “expected to work like adults”.  The worker stated that after being told it would look bad for her, she didn’t think it would make a difference.  She stated that despite having been harassed by him in November, she was still expected to work with him.  She stated that he had been promoted casually and that no matter what he did, he didn’t receive criticism but that she did, and she was given more and more jobs to do.  She stated that when all was said and done, there was nobody on her side.  She stated that she spent a whole year trying to work on herself to create a positive impression, and to provide customer service, and in the end it felt like a complete waste of time.

The Employer submitted the Worker was in employment with the Employer from 29 January 2022 until 07 February 2025, when she resigned. The Worker was employed in the Howth franchise, worked on average 30 hours per week and was paid €13.50 per hour at the time of her resignation.

The Employer submitted that in November 2024, the Worker and her supervisor at the time were involved in a dispute onsite. The Worker’s Store Manager, was not onsite at the time of the disagreement, however engaged with both parties to understand what had occurred. Additionally, CCTV footage of the incident was reviewed by the Store Manager and subsequently, the Worker was issued with a warning. The Employer submitted that this was not an isolated matter and the Worker’s colleague was also subject to a related process, however in line with their confidentiality obligations, the Employer could not confirm further details.

The Employer submitted that on 20 January 2025, the Worker shared a written resignation with the Employer confirming that she did not believe her “forever job” was there and confirmed her final day of employment as 07 February 2025.  The Employer submitted that as evidenced in the Worker’s resignation, she made no reference whatsoever to the later issues raised but submitted her claim form to the WRC on 05 March 2025. On the same date, the Worker subsequently contacted the Employer via email outlining her grievances with her supervisor (Employee 1), Store Manager (Manager 1), and the District Manager. The Worker confirmed that despite this being shared to the Employer over one month after ceasing employment, that she sent this because she knew “who it is going to reach”. This was the first notification the Employer received relating to any grievance the Worker had regarding her employment or colleagues. This email was shared despite the Worker being aware of the Employer’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms and despite her having left the company one month prior.

The Employer submitted that on 26 May 2025, the Worker contacted the WRC advising that she believed the root of these problems related to the fact that there are not “systems in place to actively check in and monitor the behaviour and attitudes of higher up staff”, that senior management appear very infrequently, and that she believed that there was a crucial step being missed in between that the Employer refused to fill in. This correspondence, outlining additional grievances and concerns was received by the Employer approximately three months following the Worker’s employment coming to an end and was the first notification of these complaints The Employer submitted that furthermore, the Worker in this correspondence retracted her claims regarding the District Manager, advising that she now understood that he was unaware of the issues.

In its submission the Employer submitted that the Worker did not progress any of these matters through the internal dispute resolution processes and procedures whilst in employment. Specifically, she did not exhaust the Employer’s Grievance Policy) in relation to any of her claims, nor did she seek to bring this to the attention of senior management, other than her Store Manager at the time, only doing so between one and three months following her final day of employment.

The Employer submitted that it has a well-established dispute resolution grievance procedure in place, through which all grievances are fully and fairly addressed, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000). The grievance procedure was not formally initiated, thus restricting the Employer’s ability to address any of her complaints whilst she was in employment.

It was the Employer’s position that in advance of the Worker lodging this claim with the WRC, she could have formally notified the Employer of any concerns she may have had and exhausted internal procedures to resolve any grievance, which she failed to do. The Employer contends that it was not fair nor reasonable for the Worker to rely on an external third party prior to engaging and exhausting in the company's own dispute resolution mechanisms. The Employer submitted that the Worker had failed to provide the Employer an adequate opportunity to fully respond to any of her concerns whilst she was in employment and that this was despite her own admission via email to the Employer on 07 March 2025 (that upon sending that correspondence, she was aware that the information contained therein would reach senior management.

In support of their position, the Employer referred to the case of A Part-Time Teaching Assistant v A University, ADJ-00006488, where it was found that:

 “It is well established that disputes under this Act should be raised and exhausted at local level through the Employer’s grievance procedure. I find in this case that this did not occur. As outlined to both parties at the Hearing, The Workplace Relations Commission should not be the first port of call when a person has a grievance under the Industrial Relations Act. I note in the Labour Court case INT1014 it stated, “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed.”

The Employer submitted that this was further confirmed in A Sales Manager v A Large Company, ADJ-00006959, where it was decided that “on the sole basis that local resolution procedures have not been exhausted by the Appellant, I do not find merit in the dispute before me.”

The Employer also drew attention to the case of A Driver v Warehouse & Delivery, ADJ-0001406 where the Adjudication Officer concluded as follows: “He never invoked and exhausted the grievance procedure, and this claim is rejected.” … “I find that there is a requirement that a person taking a claim under this Act must raise a formal grievance and have it fully exhausted before submitting a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission”. … “The WRC must not be the first port of call in a dispute resolution”.

The Employer submitted that notwithstanding that the Worker submitted written correspondence to the Employer when she was no longer an employee, the Employer, taking complaints of this nature very seriously, appointed an independent District Manager, to conduct an investigation into these matters. The Worker was engaged in this process to ensure the information submitted to the WRC and via email to the Employer in March 2025 was an accurate reflection of her complaints, along with the Worker’s colleagues cited in her correspondence. The Employer confirmed that the Worker’s complaint was partially upheld, resulting in the implementation of recommendations including, but not limited to:

• A review of the procedures surrounding promotions internally, to ensure all promotions are guided by documented criteria along with transparent communication to all applicants, and

• The provision of greater training.

The Employer submitted that while an immediate outcome of this process was the implementation of a performance-management process, the details of which could not be shared due to confidentiality, a longer-term outcome was the creation of a Training Manager role within the Employer company. The Employer outlined that the objective of this function was to be responsible for ensuring colleagues across the business receive relevant training and will ultimately be responsible for the implementation of the above recommendations. The Employer submitted that recruitment for this position was underway at the time of writing their submission.

The Employer noted that the delay in raising these matters deprived the Employer of the opportunity to address and resolve these issues whilst the Worker was in employment, when relevant facts and context would have been more readily available. Notwithstanding this, the Employer submitted that it acted on the Workers complaint by appointing an independent District Manager to thoroughly investigate and issue recommendations on the matters raised.

In conclusion, the Employer refuted the claim in its entirety and submitted that the Worker failed to progress this matter and exhaust any internal dispute resolution policy or procedure, as is required in order to pursue a complaint relating to ‘bullying and harassment procedures’ under the 1969 Act. The Employer contended that it was not fair or reasonable for the Worker to rely on an external third party prior to engaging in and exhausting internal mechanisms to resolve their dispute. In furtherance of this, the Employer referred to Employee v Employer, IR-SC-00001539, in which it was stated: “It is tantamount to a condition precedent that there is an obligation on a worker/Complainant that he or she will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing Grievance or complaint before reaching for the WRC option. … Had the Complainant stayed in the workplace, I have no reason to believe that these issues would not have been fully dealt with in-house”.

The Employer requested that the Adjudicator consider the Employer’s arguments as presented and find in favour of the Employer and dismiss this claim in its entirety.

The Employer provided a book of appendices containing all documents referred to in it’s submission.

Representations on behalf of the Employer at hearing:

Ms Maverly outlined to the hearing that the Worker had failed to utilise the Employers’ internal procedures and that it was only after she left employment that she raised grievances and that she utilised the procedure.  She stated that the Worker was never discouraged from making complaints and that significant efforts had been made by the Employer to have the two individuals work on separate rosters.  She stated that there were two incidents when the Worker and her supervisor were rostered together where their shifts overlapped.  She stated that when the complaint was received, it was investigated in full and that arising from that investigation, there were recommendations in relation to management training and in relation to performance management. 

Ms Maverly stated that the Employer was deprived of all opportunity to properly investigate the matters during the course of the Worker’s employment and therefore they never got the opportunity to rectify the situation.  She stated that the Worker should have exhausted the internal procedures and should not instead be relying on an external party to adjudicate on the matter.  She stated that the investigation was conducted by an independent District Manager and that the complaint was lodged against three individuals.  She stated that there were two main elements to the complaints lodged, (i) in relation to being overlooked for promotion and (ii) concerns that her complaints in relation to her supervisor had not been addressed.  She stated that within the Employer business, there is a very structured process in relation to promotion and that it begins with an Employee making an expression of interest.  She stated that at that time, Manager 1 had a conversation with the Worker and that at that time, there could have been a programme put in place to support her development, however, she noted that the Worker’s approach to Manager 1 had also been of a casual nature. 

In relation to the issues between the parties, she noted that there had been an altercation between them in November 2024 and that the next day, both individuals were spoken to, and they both agreed to put the matter behind them and move on and work together in the best interests of both parties.  She stated that there were extensive efforts to recruit and that notwithstanding that, they had difficulties with recruitment.  She stated that there were no further reports of issues on the shifts and that even the Worker’s resignation letter was silent in relation to any further issues.  She stated that the Worker resigned her employment in February 2025 and that from November 2024 until that date, the Employer was not aware of any issue. 

Ms Maverly stated that all of the relevant policies were available in each store and that the grievance policy was appended to the employee’s contract.  She stated that at any time, the Worker could have sought clarification if she had any questions in relation to those policies.  She noted that the Worker had acknowledged that she was aware of how to access senior management.  Ms Maverly also drew attention to the partner grievance guidelines, and the timelines for responding to grievances set out in that document.  She stated that within that document, there was a clear commitment to always seek to resolve matters informally in the first instance.  She stated that at the outset of employment, each employee is given a copy of the partner handbook to sign and that there is always a copy available in each store and that it was kept in an open office.  She stated that this was the general office where it would be easily accessible. 

In relation to the recommendation arising from the investigation of the Worker’s complaints, she stated that the introduction of a training position into the organisation would be helpful to Manager 1 as if the conversation between him and the Worker had been documented, there would have been a more detailed account of what had taken place.  She stated that it appeared that she was not ready to take on the role of a supervisor and that this should have been formalised with some guidance and support on what more she could do to make herself ready.  She stated that the new post would be responsible for training and for implementation of agreements.  She stated that unfortunately because of her resignation, the Worker would not now receive the benefit of those changes. 

In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer, Ms Maverly confirmed that a decision was made not to bring Manager 1 to the hearing because of the interpersonal issues. 

Employer concluding remarks:

Ms Maverly summarised the Employer’s case that the initial interpersonal issues between the Worker and her supervisor had been raised locally and had never formally been brought to attention through the grievance procedure.  In those circumstances she stated the Employer was not afforded the opportunity to properly investigate the concerns and to have the opportunity to rectify those issues.  She stated that the Employer was disappointed that they were denied the opportunity to rectify the issues for the Worker while she was in employment with the company.  She acknowledged that the Worker and District Manager did have conversations but that there was nothing raised by the Worker between November 2024 and February 2025 when she submitted her resignation.  She drew attention to the investigation report which was appended to the Employer submission and confirmed that there were performance management arrangements in place within the organisation now.

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

The Worker alleged that she was bullied in the workplace and that she was left with no option but to resign her employment as the Employer failed to appropriately address the issues.  The Employer denied the allegations and instead contended that the Worker had never formally raised her concerns while in employment.

In considering this matter I note that it was common case that issues had arisen between the Worker and her Supervisor and that the Worker had informally raised her concerns with her Line Manager regarding those interactions.  I accept the Worker’s position that she understood that, in turn, those matters were brought to the attention of the District Manager by her Line Manager.  I noted, however, that the Line Manager had not escalated her issues of concern and I noted that the Worker now accepted that position.

I noted that while the Employer contended that the policy documents were available in the workplace the Worker contended that she was not aware of the relevant policies.  However, I noted the details of the Grievance Procedure as follows:

“Informal Resolution

If you have a concern, we expect you to try to resolve this matter informally with the employee or parties concerned. Often discussing the concern informally can lead to a shared understanding and a more successful outcome. If you feel uncomfortable in raising your concern in this way, you should raise the concern verbally with your manager. If the grievance concerns your manager, you should speak with the next level of management or an area/district manager.

Formal procedure

If the informal approach has been exhausted or where the grievance is regarding something more serious you should put your grievance in writing to your manager. If the grievance concerns your manager put your grievance in writing to the next level of management or the Director of Operations. You may receive a call to have initial discussions regarding your concern and how you would like to proceed. Where a formal grievance is made, a manager should arrange a meeting with you as soon as reasonably possible to discuss your concerns. Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to interview other employees and gather further information to make an informed decision and find an appropriate solution. The decision and any appropriate action will be communicated to you in writing”

It is clear to me that the Worker did make efforts to address her issues while she was still in employment and I fully accept that she brought her concerns to the attention of her Line Manager.  I also accept her position that she believed the Line Manager had escalated her concerns and that when he advised her not to submit a written complaint, he was doing so having discussed matters with the District Manager.  In these circumstances I have formed the view that local management failed to take adequate steps to address the concerns raised by the Worker and actively discouraged her from utilising the Grievance Procedure.  In such circumstances it cannot reasonably be argued that she failed to utilise the procedure, and her complaint cannot be set aside. I must therefore conclude that as a result of the actions of the local manager the Worker’s concerns were not appropriately addressed while she remained in the workplace.

I acknowledge that when the Workers complaint was brought to the attention of more senior management following receipt of her WRC complaint, the Employer took all necessary steps to investigate the issues, notwithstanding the fact that the Worker was no longer in employment.  I commend the Employer on the very thorough examination of the complaints and on the recommendations to address the wider workplace issues that became apparent.  The implementation of those recommendations should mitigate against future similar occurrences.

I acknowledge also that the Employer partially upheld the Workers allegation.