Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

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 - 00005175

17/09/2025

The worker was employed on a fixed term contract and made a series of complaints concerning her treatment by a colleague. The worker with the assistance of the employer tried to resolve the issues informally. As the issues remained unresolved, the worker submitted a formal complaint under the Dignity at Work Policy requesting an investigation. The respondent did not investigate the complaint and sought to resolve matters by taking other steps.

As the worker was aggrieved that the complaints would not be investigated, the dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The employer denies a breach of procedures.

The worker made a detailed submission which outlined six incidents she had encountered with her colleague from September 2024 to June 2025. She raised these incidents directly with her colleague initially. As other incidents arose, she raised these with her employer. Management provided support to resolve the matters informally. After an incident in mid-June 2025, the worker made a formal complaint of bullying and requested a formal investigation. She submitted a more detailed complaint in early July 2025. She then accepted an invitation to meet an external mediator. She decided not to proceed with mediation and requested that the documented incidents be investigated.

In mid-August 2025, the worker met management to discuss the complaints. The following week, at a meeting between the employer and worker it was decided not to progress the matter under the formal process of a workplace bullying allegation. This decision and rationale were outlined in writing to the worker by her employer.

The worker did not accept the rationale for not investigating her detailed formal complaint and referred the dispute to the WRC.

The employer made a detailed submission outlining the Company Dignity at Work Policy and the WRC/HSA/Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work Code of Practice. The wording in the Policy and the Code states-

“Proceeding to a formal process should not be viewed as automatic and it is important that it is recognised that it is the reasonable evidence-based decision of management. Escalating a complaint to a formal process should only be done following a review of all aspects of the circumstances surrounding matters complained about. Being able to evidence a reasonable decision-making process is important and may be required to defend the employer’s duty at a later stage, so a record of that should be kept by the appropriate person acting for the employer.”

The employer also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ruffley v. The Board of Management of St Anne’s School [2017] on the objective test and definition of what constitutes bullying in the workplace.

The letter outlined the reasons for not investigating the complaint which were-

·         While there is evidence of continuing dysfunction in the work dynamic, the grievance document does not contain a narrative to justify progression of the issue on the basis of an investigation into workplace bullying/discrimination.

·         It is not appropriate that resolution of the matter should now turn to a formal adversarial investigation dynamic that seeks to uphold or refute an allegation of workplace bullying/discrimination. To do so based on the information and examples outlined in your “formal grievance submission” would be unhelpful and may hinder the opportunity to preserve the working dynamic into the future.

The letter also went through each of the six incidents and outlined why an investigation was unwarranted.

At the end of the communication, the employer outlined the steps and actions that it would take such as-

·         Meeting the parties and setting out the behaviours expected.

·         Setting out the expected standards in an action plan.

·         Review of the action plan.

·         An offer of mediation.

·         Consequences in the event of a breach of an action plan.

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

Adjudication Role

As there are no specific statutory provisions on bullying, the guidance is in the ‘Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work’ (the Code). The Company Dignity at Work (Policy) is also relevant.

The Code describes the role of the Adjudication Services on page 25-

‘The provision of Adjudication services under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 following the exhaustion of internal procedures (note: the grounds of referral to an Adjudication Officer are around the conduct of an investigation in terms of fairness and adherence to fair process and procedures).’

Based on the definition of bullying and nature of complaints, I am satisfied that they fall under the Employer’s Policy and the Code of Practice. This is confirmed by the parties themselves in the correspondence after the receipt of the formal complaint. There is no conflict between the parties on the documentation submitted and received, particularly from June 2025 onwards. As outlined, the adjudication role for this type of dispute is solely focussed on fair procedures and the process followed.

Employer Rationale for not Investigating

This issue at the centre of the dispute is that no investigation took place and therefore the employer’s reasons are important. The worker is obviously dissatisfied with the reasoning and expected an investigation. She made an immediate complaint to the WRC after this decision.

No Automatic Right to Investigate

The wording in the Policy and Code is as above. The wording in the pre-amble differs slightly. The wording suggests a type of screening of complaints so that all grievances/complaints do not automatically proceed to investigation.

The Policy states-

‘In so far as possible, and in accordance with the relevant Code Of Practice concerning Bullying, employees are strongly encouraged to resolve concerns/complaints of bullying using the Informal Process (including mediation) as outlined above.’

The Code states-

‘It is good practice that all informal resolution avenues-as set out above- should be contemplated and where appropriate, exhausted before a formal process is invoked.’

When the incidents arose in October 2024, there was direct engagement between the worker and her colleague. The next incident resulted in an intense argument in the corridor. The CEO held a separate meeting and then a joint meeting to clear the air. Subsequently, management took steps to separate work to ensure less interaction between the parties.

These interventions did not resolve matters as further incidents arose in 2025. In June 2025, a formal complaint of bullying was made, followed by a more detailed complaint in early July 2025.

Formal Bullying Complaint

Between the submission of the initial formal complaint and the more detailed complaint, there was a meeting between two managers and the worker. The note of this meeting states ‘…. outlined that this was an initial check in meeting to determine next best steps- we wouldn’t be progressing straight to a formal investigation as requested in the email.’

After the detailed submission was received in early July 2025, there was another communication proposing mediation and the worker agreed to meet with the external mediator. A communication then issued to the worker to confirm the date of mediation, and reference was again made to no automatic entitlement to a formal investigation. Although the worker met with the external mediator, she decided not to proceed with that process. When the mediation did not proceed, management emailed the worker stating-

‘Since you have declined the proposal of formal mediation, at this point it is the Company responsibility to give careful consideration to the content of your grievance document and your request for a formal investigation on the alleged basis of workplace bullying and discrimination. It is to be understood that an allegation of workplace bullying and discrimination with a follow up formal investigation is a matter of considerable gravity for all concerned; the complainant, the respondent and the Company. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company accepts that your grievance document clearly outlines a continuing dysfunctional working relationship that needs to be addressed.’

The meeting in mid-August 2025 confirmed that no investigation would take place and gave the rationale along with the next steps.

Findings

At the initial stages, all parties made appropriate efforts to resolve matters informally, as required by the Policy and the Code.

Mediation

Prior to a decision not to investigate the complaints, there were two references to the fact that the complaint may not be investigated which ultimately was the decision made.

The extract above to ‘declining the proposal of formal mediation’ is not in line with “mediation” as outlined in the Policy which appears before the “Formal Process/Procedure.” This reference to formality in the mediation process was unwarranted. As mediation is a voluntary process, the emphasis on formality appeared to force the process on the parties.

It is insignificant when a mediation process takes place, although here the approach was not strictly in line with the policy. Mediation is always voluntary and as per the Policy ‘Either party may withdraw …...’ It is concerning though that the employer in explaining the rationale for not investigating placed an emphasis on the workers refusal to proceed with mediation.

‘The offer of an external mediator to support you both in a mediation dialogue with a view to addressing these issues (To which you have refused)’

I consider the above statement to be inappropriate, as it could be perceived that no investigation ensued due to her not proceeding with formal mediation. The way events unfolded, both the worker and employer cannot be criticised for attempts to try and resolve matters informally.

Due to the approach on mediation, the process at this point appeared to become tainted, although the worker at that stage was unaware that her complaint would not be investigated.

Investigation?

As per the Policy and Code, the crucial decision not to investigate is to be ‘reasonable evidence-based’ and ‘following a review of all aspects of the circumstances surrounding matters complained about.’

The issue of “no automatic right of investigation” was flagged by management even before the detailed complaint was received. The rationale outlined in writing was summarised by the employer as follows-

·          While there is evidence of continuing dysfunction in the work dynamic, the grievance document does not contain a narrative to justify progression of the issue on the basis of an investigation into workplace bullying/discrimination.

·         It is not appropriate that resolution of the matter should now turn to a formal adversarial investigation dynamic that seeks to uphold or refute an allegation of workplace bullying/discrimination. To do so based on the information and examples outlined in your “formal grievance submission” would be unhelpful and may hinder the opportunity to preserve the working dynamic into the future.

The above appears to pre-determine an outcome that will hinder a working dynamic. This assessment is not what was envisaged in the Policy or Code in terms of an evidence-based decision. Management referred to the future effects or gravity on the company in earlier communication. This is not in compliance with the Policy which states-

‘All employees have a right to make a complaint if they feel they have been bullied and/or harassed, and they should follow the steps in the following procedure. All complaints will be taken seriously, and the procedure will be handled with fairness, sensitivity and with due respect for the rights of both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.’

Supreme Court Judgment

As the employer is relying on Ruffley, I have reviewed the Charleton J & O’Donnell J judgments. Whilst the judgments provide guidance on the definition of bullying, that case concerned liability for personal injuries if bullying occurred. O’Donnell J summarised the issue distinctly at paragraph 59 –

‘could a flawed disciplinary procedure which goes on over a number of months and takes a number of steps ever be considered to be ‘repeated inappropriate behaviour’ for the purposes on the definition? With the addition that the conduct must also capable of undermining the person’s right to dignity at work is, I consider the correct question as a matter of law.’

The nature of the formal bullying complaints in this case are different from Ruffley although guidance on the definition of bullying is helpful. The employer before taking a decision not to investigate the complaints said that advice was not taken. Ruffley was not referenced in the reasoning for the decision. Even if it was in the mind of the decision-maker, the latter part of what O’Donnell J stated was not assessed- conduct must also capable of undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work’ As outlined, the reasoning was not evidence-based on the circumstances surrounding matters complained about and any gravity for the company is not the main factor.

Conclusion

In summary, all parties attempted to resolve matters through the informal procedures before the worker decided to proceed with a formal complaint. Although not referred to as a screening process in the formal documents, a practical aim of informal procedures ensures complaints do not proceed unnecessarily or too quickly to investigation stage.

The employer commendably took steps such as separating budgets and engaged jointly with the parties. Bullying complaints can be difficult to manage in small employments. The Code warns senior managers of the danger of getting involved too early when they may be needed for a later judgment or appeal. I do not consider that the clear the air meeting convened by the CEO prejudiced her later involvement.

Once the informal attempts were unsuccessful, there was an onus to follow the procedure as it effected the parties as opposed to the company.

For the reasons outlined, I find merit in the workers dispute in that the Policy and Code were not adhered to as per the wording below-

“Proceeding to a formal process should not be viewed as automatic and it is important that it is recognised that it is the reasonable evidence-based decision of management. Escalating a complaint to a formal process should only be done following a review of all aspects of the circumstances surrounding matters complained about. Being able to evidence a reasonable decision-making process is important and may be required to defend the employer’s duty at a later stage, so a record of that should be kept by the appropriate person acting for the employer.”

In terms of appropriate redress, an investigation is now pointless, in circumstances where the worker is no longer employed. The appropriate redress is compensation like the Labour Court Recommendation in Assure Hedge v. A Worker LCR23004 where there were procedural failings. In that case, there was no formal written complaint, whereas in this case, the worker followed each step of the procedure and kept her employer on notice.

In these circumstances, I recommend that the employer pay compensation of €7,000 to the worker in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute. For clarity, this is an award of compensation and is unrelated to wages.

Dignity at work Investigation