Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Security Personnel

Security Service

Representatives

Representative Association

Self-Represented

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 - 00003671

17/01/2025

On 17th January 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her employer permitted a significant delay in the investigation of an allegation of harassment. She further submitted that the Employer failed to properly classify a period of leave arising from the dispute, causing her further harm. By response, the Employer submitted that they adhered to their internal procedures regarding the investigation of the dispute, that no significant delay arose in relation to the dispute and that the classification of the sick leave in question was part of an ongoing process.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 2nd September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. 

The Worker initially contended that the handling of a workplace bullying allegation was subject to excessive delay, with these delays directly contributing to the Employer’s failure to resolve the same. It was further submitted that systemic failures led to a refusal to certify her absence as an occupational injury, which intensified the perceived injustice.

On 19th November 2023, the Worker commenced a period of sick leave due to work related stress stemming from the conduct of her immediate supervisor. Although she informed a senior colleague of the situation at that time, conditions did not improve. The aggressive conduct reportedly escalated, causing a detrimental impact on the health of the Worker.

Upon returning to work on 18th December 2023, the Worker was assigned to a different manager and informed that mediation had commenced. This mediation occurred on 5th April 2024 but did not reach a successful conclusion. Consequently, on 8th April 2024, the Worker submitted a formal complaint under the internal policies of the Employer. The Worker maintained that her absence between 19th November 2023 and 18th December 2023 should not have been classified as an ordinary illness. On 19th June 2024, the Worker requested that this classification be amended so as to be included in the Employer’s occupational injury scheme. To date, the Worker has received no formal notification regarding the status of this application.

By submission, the Worker stated that the internal investigation of her formal complaint was subject to numerous delays. In this regard, she submitted that the Employer’s procedures mandate that any such delay be communicated to the parties, with their consent sought in relation to a proposed extension of the relevant timelines. By submission, the Worker stated that the Employer was in breach of these provisions. Due in no small part to these delays, the internal investigation itself was fatally compromised when the subject of the complaint retired on 25th October 2024, while the process remained incomplete. By correspondence, the Employer stated that the retirement of the respondent serves to finalise the process. The Worker submitted that this effectively denied her a resolution to her complaints.

The Worker further submitted that the Employer misclassified her period of absence. The Worker commenced a period of stress related sick leave on 19th November 2023 and returned to work approximately one month later on 18th December 2023. During this timeframe, the absence was recorded as an ordinary illness. On 6th June 2024, the Worker submitted an application to have this absence reclassified as an injury on duty under the relevant code of the Employer. On the date of the hearing, the Worker still had not received a substantive response in relation to the same.

In light of the foregoing, the Worker maintained that she is entitled to an immediate and fair resolution of her application. Furthermore, she submitted that such leave entitlements should be managed in accordance with the principles of due process and the regulations governing statutory applications.

The Employer denied each of the two complaints raised by the Worker. In this regard, the Employer accepted that the Worker was absent from duty between 19th November 2023 and 18th December 2023, with a diagnosis of work-related stress. The Employer further acknowledged that this matter was referred to internal mediation services and subsequently became the subject of a formal complaint.

On 10th April 2024, an investigator was appointed in accordance with section 8.4 of the internal procedures of the Employer. However, this individual duly commenced a period of sick leave until 19th July 2024. In September 2024, the Worker objected to a further extension of time. In an effort to ensure fairness to all parties, the Employer granted a further extension on 1st October 2024, covering the period from 6th September 2024 to 1st November 2024.

The subject of the investigation retired on 6th October 2024, and the Worker was subsequently advised on 25th October 2024 that the investigation would not proceed. Regarding the allegations of delay raised by the Worker, the Employer submitted that the timeframe for the procedure was not unusual given the relatively complexity of the matter. They further submitted that any delays in the process were attributable to the illness of the appointed investigator and were communicated to the Worker in accordance with the procedure. Furthermore, they contended that the retirement of the respondent meant they no longer possessed the ability to investigate the complaints.

Regarding the classification of the sick leave of the Worker, the Employer submitted that such a designation is dependent upon the absence being defined as an “injury on duty”. The Employer maintained that an injury on duty must be directly and causally linked to the execution of duty. In this regard, they submitted that this definition neither explicitly excludes nor includes absence caused by work related stress. However, in such situations, they submitted that it is the practice of the Employer to make any such assessments in consideration of a report from the CMO, they further submitted that such assessment cannot finalise while an investigation under the internal procedures in underway.

The Employer accepted that no decision regarding classification has been reached on the date of the hearing. The Employer further submitted that the medical procedure does not stipulate a specific timeline for a decision on injury on duty applications. Nonetheless, they stated it is clear that any payment will be retrospective and the default position is that the absence remains classified as ordinary illness pending a final determination.

In summary, the Employer submitted that the internal process was not subject to an unreasonable delay. They further submitted that the outcome was rendered moot by the retirement of the respondent to the complaint and the process finalised thereafter. Finally, they contended that, far from misclassifying the absence, the matter remains under consideration with a resolution to the same being anticipated in the near future.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has raised two primary allegations against her Employer. Firstly, the Worker alleged that an unwanted and unnecessary delay occurred in the investigation of a formal complaint of harassment within the Employer’s internal procedures. In this regard, it is common case that the worker referred a formal complaint following the failure of the mediation process in April of 2024. Having reviewed the Employer’s internal procedures in relation to such matters, it is apparent that the same sets out specific timelines for each point of the investigation, presumably in order to ensure efficiency and to ensure that the parties have some clarity as to the potential duration of any investigation. In this regard, section 8.5 provides for an extension to these time limits in certain situations. This provision states that extensions to the time limits outlined are acceptable once there is clear justification and both the complainant and the person complained of have indicated that they have no objection to the extension. The provision in question further states that the Employer must maintain a record of the reasons for delay in the time limits.

Regarding the instant matter, on 11th June 2024 the appointed investigator contacted the Worker, requesting an extension of the time limits under this provision. Although not stated in this email, the Employer, in their later submission, confirmed that the extension was sought on the basis that the investigator had been absent due to sick leave for a period of time. By response, the Worker stated that she had no issue with a short extension in relation to the matter. Nonetheless, she expressly stated that she would prefer to have the matter progressed as expeditiously as possible, due to the fact the behaviours complained of were ongoing.

At this point, it is apparent that the procedure had been operating as intended, with an unexpected delay arising on the part of the Employer and the Worker being informed of the nature of the delay, being asked for her consent to an extension, and the extension duly being granted. Thereafter, the Worker received correspondence on 1st of October 2024, stating that the investigator had sought an further extension of time under the provision. This correspondence did not emanate from the investigator themselves, but rather from a more senior member of management. This correspondence states that the extension of time in question had been granted, without, it seems, any recourse to the Worker. It was also noted that the extension was granted retrospectively, from 6th September to 9th October.  This correspondence was issued to the worker as a fait accompli, with no input or consent sought from her in relation to the extension.

Having reviewed this correspondence, it is apparent that the Employer is in breach of their own procedures. Whilst it is almost inevitable that there will be certain delays and issues arising in relation to an investigation, particularly a complex investigation, the Employer's own policy mandates that both parties to the complaint must be informed of any delay, and that their consent should at least be sought in relation to the same. The procedure in question do not provide for any form of retrospective extension.

In this respect, these delays did not merely serve to inconvenience the Worker. It is common case that the respondent to the complaint retired shortly after the further extension was granted, and at this point, the Employer deemed the matter to be essentially moot, and the process was thus discontinued. In this regard, it can be seen that the delays in the process directly led to the process itself being rendered invalid, with no material outcome issuing in respect of the same. This impending retirement should have been within the knowledge of the Employer, and it would be reasonably assumed that they would attempt to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible in these circumstances.

Finally, it is unclear as to why the retirement of the respondent to the complaint rendered the complaint itself completed. Whilst it is obvious that the retirement of the respondent would create some difficulties in the investigation, there was ample time for the Employer to collect a statement from this person, and to put the matters complained of to them, prior to their retirement. It is not at all clear from the Employer’s own procedures that the retirement of the respondent to the complaint automatically served to defeat the complaint. Rather, it is apparent that the Employer retains has a duty to issue an outcome to the Worker in relation to the complaint. It may well be the case that this outcome would be that difficulties arose in securing a response to the complaint, given the retirement of the subject. Nonetheless, the fact that the respondent to the complaint retired, does not mean that the adverse behaviour complained of did not happen and that the Worker remains entitled to some form of resolution to her complaint arising from the same. Having regard to the foregoing, I find in respect to the Worker in respect to this part of the dispute.

The second part of the dispute referred by the Worker related to the classification of her leave for a period of approximately one month at the commencement of the process. By submission, the Worker stated that she was still waiting for an outcome from them in relation to the same. By response, the Employer stated that such matters must go through an internal process with advice having been received from the chief medical officer. In their respective submissions, the parties fell into dispute in relation to the interpretation of a decision of the superior courts regarding such applications.

In this regard, an internal memo was referenced by both parties to the dispute. This memo stated that all assessment of injury on duty should not be finalised until a concurrent investigation under the bullying and harassment procedures is completed. While the Worker, through their representative, raised a significant issue with this position, the fact remains that the Employer deemed the investigation to be closed, and there is no impediment to their assessing their Worker's claim in this regard. By submission, the Employer has stated that they are awaiting advice from the chief medical officer in this regard and that they anticipate that the matter would be finalised shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, is noted that there has been a significant delay in this assessment, which has caused further unnecessary discomfort to the Worker in the performance of her duties. Having regard to the foregoing, I also find in favour of the worker in relation to this aspect of the dispute.

Delay, retirement, procedure, consent