Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

Representatives

N/A

Conor Fynes Lewis Silkin Ireland

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 - 00004377

28/05/2025

This dispute concerns a complaint referred by the Worker under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 arising from interactions between the Worker and a senior executive of the Respondent during a site visit and town hall event held at a newly developed company facility in March 2025.

The Worker remains employed by the Employer and has lengthy service with the organisation. Following the events giving rise to the complaint, the Worker raised a formal grievance through the Respondent's internal procedures. The grievance was investigated but was not upheld.

The Worker stated that she was treated in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner by a senior executive during a site visit and town hall event.

The Worker stated that upon greeting the senior executive on arrival at the facility, he failed to acknowledge her appropriately, made what she interpreted as a dismissive facial expression and did not shake her hand while engaging normally with other individuals present. She stated that this interaction left her feeling embarrassed and upset at the outset of the event.

The Worker further contended that throughout the site tour she felt that her attempts to engage professionally with the senior executive were met with dismissive behaviour. She stated that this conduct caused her discomfort and left her feeling undermined in the presence of colleagues and senior management.

The Worker also took issue with a comment made by the senior executive concerning her husband, which she considered unnecessarily personal and inappropriate in a workplace setting. She stated that she attempted to redirect the conversation to business matters but was left feeling uncomfortable by the exchange.

A further matter relied upon by the Worker concerned a remark allegedly made during a discussion regarding the readiness of the building for occupancy and future events. The Worker stated that the statement conveyed an unfair and inaccurate impression of her professional conduct and demeanour.

The Worker also stated that remarks made during the town hall event, including comments referring to the working relationship between herself and the senior executive, caused her embarrassment in front of colleagues.

The Worker stated that the cumulative effect of these incidents had a significant impact upon her wellbeing and caused her considerable distress. She further stated that she was dissatisfied with the conclusions ultimately reached through the Respondent's grievance process.

In relation to the facilitated conversation subsequently offered by the Employer wherein the senior executive indicated he would offer an apology, the Worker stated that she had only just returned to work following a period of leave when that offer was made, and that she did not feel she was in the right place to have that conversation at that time. The Worker stated that the offer was not made to her again.

The Employer rejected any suggestion that the Worker was subjected to bullying, harassment or deliberately inappropriate treatment.

The Employer stated that immediately upon receipt of the grievance they commenced a formal investigation in accordance with its grievance procedure. An investigating manager was appointed and meetings were conducted with the Worker, the senior executive concerned and a number of witnesses who had attended the site visit and town hall event.

The Employer accepted that the initial interaction between the parties was ill-judged. In particular, they acknowledged that the senior executive accepted during the investigation that his conduct during the initial greeting could have been handled better. However, the Employer stated that the investigation found no evidence of malice or intentional disrespect.

The Employer further stated that the reference to the Worker's husband arose from a longstanding acquaintance and was not intended as an inappropriate personal remark. They asserted that the comments made during the course of the day were not intended to demean, undermine or embarrass the Worker.

The Employer stated that witness evidence did not substantiate the more serious allegations advanced by the Worker and that several witnesses regarded the exchanges as informal or light-hearted in nature.

The Employer emphasised that the senior executive acknowledged during the investigation that some of his comments may have been poorly judged and expressed regret that the Worker was upset by them. The Employer also highlighted that the senior executive indicated a willingness to apologise directly and to repair the professional relationship.

The Employer further stated that the grievance procedure was conducted in accordance with fair procedures and natural justice. They pointed out that the Worker was afforded a full opportunity to present her concerns, that witness evidence was gathered and considered, and that a detailed written outcome issued.

A significant element of the Employer's case was that the Worker failed to exhaust the internal grievance procedure. The Employer stated that the grievance outcome expressly provided for a right of appeal and that an extension of time was granted to facilitate any appeal. Notwithstanding that extension, no appeal was lodged by the Worker.

The Employer further stated that, notwithstanding the closure of the formal process, they subsequently offered to facilitate a conversation between the Worker and the senior executive so that a direct apology could be extended. The Employer confirmed that this offer was made once, in October 2025, and was not repeated.

The Employer therefore stated that there was no basis upon which the Workplace Relations Commission should revisit the substantive findings reached through an internal procedure that was not fully exhausted.

There is no dispute that the events in question caused genuine upset to the Worker. I noted that she considered the conduct of the senior executive to be disrespectful and that she experienced the interactions as distressing. I accept that this perception was sincerely held and that the matter had a significant impact upon her.

I further accept that aspects of the conduct complained of occurred. The senior executive himself acknowledged during the investigation that his conduct during the initial greeting was inappropriate and that his approach may have been poorly judged. The Employer similarly accepted that this interaction ought to have been handled differently.

However, the dispute before me arises under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The issue for determination is not whether I would have reached the same conclusion as the internal investigator, nor is it my function to substitute my assessment of the facts for that of an investigator who was properly appointed and who conducted a detailed review of the matter.

I noted that that the Employer conducted an investigation of the grievance in accordance with their procedures and the Worker was afforded the opportunity to present her concerns in full. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. Documentary evidence was considered. Written findings issued addressing each of the allegations raised by the Worker. The investigation recognised that aspects of the senior executive's conduct had been inappropriate, while ultimately concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the more serious allegations advanced.

I am satisfied that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the Employer's procedures and in compliance with the principles of fair process and natural justice.

Of particular significance is the fact that the grievance procedure contained a right of appeal. I noted that the Worker was advised of that right and that, at her request, an extension of time was granted to enable her to consider lodging an appeal. Despite being afforded that opportunity, no appeal was pursued.

It is a longstanding principle of industrial relations practice that employees should ordinarily exhaust internal procedures before seeking external intervention, and that it is not the function of an Adjudication Officer to substitute their own view for that of a properly appointed internal investigator where that principle applies (see, for example, the reasoning of the Labour Court in Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v A Worker INT1014, applied in recommendations including A Compliance Officer v A Waste Company IR-SC-00000282). The appeal stage forms an integral part of the grievance procedure and exists to allow a review of the original findings where an employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome. In this case, a detailed investigation was completed, a reasoned outcome issued, and an appeal mechanism remained available, with time extended at the Worker's own request, but that opportunity was not utilised. In those circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to revisit the substantive merits of the grievance investigation or the findings reached through it.

I further note that a second opportunity to resolve this matter arose in October 2025, when the Employer proactively offered to facilitate a conversation between the Worker and the senior executive for the purpose of an apology. The Worker did not avail of that offer, explaining that she had only just returned to work following a period of leave and did not feel she was in the right place to engage in such a conversation at that time. I accept that this was a genuine and understandable position for the Worker to have taken in the circumstances. I note, however, that the offer was not repeated by the Employer at any later point, notwithstanding that the underlying willingness to apologise had been clearly expressed.

Accordingly, I do not recommend any further action on the part of the Employer. I do, however, recommend that the Employer make the offer of a facilitated apology available to the Worker once more, should she wish to avail of it at a time of her own choosing. Subject to that, I recommend that the Worker consider the matter closed.