Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Programme Director

A Community Development Organisation

Representatives

Represented himself 

Peninsula Business Services 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 - 00004821

28/07/2025

The employer is a company limited by guarantee, a registered charity, and is managed by a voluntary board, headed by a president.  In response to the suicides of a group of friends, two members of the organisation started working to promote positive mental health in rural communities.  In 2024, with the support of sponsorship, funding was secured to recruit a programme manager for this project.  The worker commenced in this role in October 2024.  His title was later changed to that of programme director. 

The worker had a difficult relationship with the president of the organisation and, in March 2025, six months into his tenure, he submitted a formal complaint regarding what he alleged was her bullying, mistreatment and undermining behaviour.  The worker went absent due to stress on April 7th 2025 and he handed in his notice on June 27th.  He finished up with the organisation on July 12th.  On the e-complaint form he submitted to the WRC on July 28th, he claimed that sustained mistreatment and a failure of management to act ultimately forced him to resign. 

In his submission, the worker listed six issues that he claims were retaliatory actions on the part of the employer, because he made a complaint about the president.  An issue that caused significant stress for him was the decision of the CEO to extend his probation.  He was told about this after he submitted his complaint about the president.  He complains that he wasn’t informed about any performance deficiencies and he was shocked at the prospect that his probation, which was due to expire on April 6th 2025, would not be passed successfully. 

The worker also claims that the CEO threatened to terminate the programme he was working on.  If this happened, his job would come to an end.   He claims that his access to his work emails was removed while he was on sick leave, and that his salary was reduced by 50% with effect from June 7th, by which time he would have been absent for two months.  He complains that he was informed about this retrospectively on June 19th.

On June 24th 2025, the worker was requested to attend an examination by the occupational health consultants, Medmark.  He regards this as coercion or intimidation and treatment that was unfair.  He claims that the consultant in Medmark was dismissive of his doctor’s medical diagnosis that he was suffering from work-related stress.

Under the heading of section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the worker asked me to make a recommendation that the management undertake training and review its practices to prevent any other employee being treated in the manner he complained about.

On behalf of the employer, Mr Dunlea said that nothing that was done by the CEO was intended to penalise the worker.  The CEO accepted that his complaint was valid and was committed to appointing someone to carry out an investigation.  This couldn’t go ahead while the worker was out sick.  Mr Dunlea conceded that communications regarding the worker’s probation and the need for it to be extended could have been done in a more official way, so that he was clear about the reason for the extension.  In this regard, Mr Dunlea referred to the decision of my colleague adjudicator, Breiffni O’Neill in Cliona Holt v Veolia Energy Services Limited, ADJ-00048216, where it was held that it was legitimate for an employer not to engage in an investigation where the employee who submitted a grievance was absent on sick leave.

Mr Dunlea conceded that certain actions of the employer could have been communicated to the worker more clearly and in a timely manner and he said that Peninsula has advised the organisation on how to deal with performance issues that could lead to an extension of probation and on the approach to handling complaints in the absence on sick leave of the person making the complaint.

The worker has asked me to recommend training for the management and to recommend that they review management practices to ensure that no other employee is treated in the way he was treated between March and June 2025.  I have considered his grievance and it is apparent that the issue that led to his decision to resign is rooted in the fractious relationship he had with the organisation’s president, from reasonably early on in his tenure.  It is also apparent that the reason the CEO decided to extend his probation was because of his part in the conflict with the president, and his failure to manage that relationship.

For his part, the decision of the CEO to extend the worker’s probation was bound to be distressing.  Such a decision should have been flagged clearly in the weeks before the probation was due to expire, and not, as in this case, just three days beforehand.  If the worker had been informed that his probation was at risk, he may have acted to address his failure to manage his relationship with the president, or he may have looked for assistance.  Ultimately, the stress caused by the decision itself, apart from the late communication, could have been avoided.   

At the hearing, Mr Dunlea informed me that Peninsula was providing advice to the employer regarding the communication required when a worker’s probation may not be passed successfully.  I recommend therefore that the employer amend their workplace procedures to provide that employees on probation have monthly assessment meetings with their line managers to identify any issues that could lead to probation being extended or to their employment being terminated during probation.

Probation, communication