Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer.

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 - 00003479

26/11/2024

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Worker was employed by the Employer in a senior salaried role, carrying significant responsibility and autonomy. The submission before me was that the Worker was recruited at a competitive salary, reflective of both her experience and the level of responsibility attaching to the position. Her role required her to work flexibly and to engage closely with senior management in meeting operational and compliance objectives.

The Worker’s employment was of relatively short duration but intensive in nature approximately nine months.  During that period, she was entrusted with a wide range of duties and was expected to exercise independent judgment. The Worker contends that, notwithstanding the seniority of her role, concerns she raised regarding her treatment in the workplace and the way her competence was questioned were not addressed through appropriate bullying and harassment procedures.

The Employer disputes that any wrongdoing occurred and maintains that the employment relationship operated within a collaborative, team-based structure. It is not in dispute that the Worker’s employment was ultimately terminated. This matter was dealt with as part of a separate decision.

The Worker gave evidence that she raised concerns with management regarding the manner in which she was treated, particularly by her manager. She stated that her competence was repeatedly questioned and that remarks were made which, in her view, undermined her professionally.

In particular, the Worker relied on the manager’s use of the term “superwoman”, which she stated was used in a context of unrealistic expectations and ongoing scrutiny of her performance. She stated that these interactions caused her distress and left her feeling unsupported, despite the seniority of her role.

The Worker gave evidence that she expected her concerns to be addressed through appropriate procedures, whether informally or formally, but that this did not occur. She stated that her concerns were minimised or dismissed and that this failure to engage meaningfully contributed to the deterioration of the working relationship, culminating in the termination of her employment.

The Employer denied that the Worker was subjected to bullying or inappropriate behaviour. The submission was that the workplace operated on a collaborative, team-based ethos and that management interactions were intended to motivate and support performance.

The Employer stated that the use of the term “superwoman” was intended as a compliment and a means of encouragement, reflecting the Employer’s assessment of the Worker as capable and committed. It was denied that the term was intended to be disparaging.

The Employer further submitted that any questioning of the Worker’s competence or performance arose from legitimate operational concerns and normal management oversight. It was contended that there was no requirement to invoke formal procedures and that the Employer did not accept that the Worker’s concerns warranted such intervention.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. As this is a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, my role is not to determine whether bullying or inappropriate behaviour occurred as a matter of fact, but rather to assess whether the Employer responded appropriately to the Worker’s concerns and whether proper procedures were utilised, in accordance with good industrial relations practice.

I have carefully considered the submissions of both parties. The central issue in this dispute is not whether bullying occurred, but whether the Employer responded appropriately to the concerns raised by the Worker.

Regardless of the Employer’s stated intent, the accounts demonstrates that the Worker perceived the language used and the ongoing questioning of her competence as undermining. Once such concerns were raised, the Employer was obliged, as a matter of good industrial relations practice, to engage meaningfully and to consider whether a structured process was required.

I am not satisfied that this occurred. The Employer’s reliance on team culture and motivational intent did not adequately address the impact of the conduct complained of, nor did it demonstrate that alternative resolution mechanisms were considered.

 Industrial Relations Act 1969, Bullying and Harassment Procedures.