Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

Representatives

Ledwith Solicitors LLP

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 - 00004261

08/05/2025

he Worker has been employed by the Respondent as a Renewal Account Representative since 24 May 2011. The Worker contends that he was treated unfairly by the Employer, following a meeting on 21 January 2025, during which he was informed that he would be moved to a different team under a new manager. The Worker believes that this change was a direct consequence of a bullying complaint he had made against his previous manager in April 2024.

On 21st January 2025, the Worker was unexpectedly informed that he would be moved to a different team, under a new manager, without prior warning. He was the only team member affected by this change, which he believes was retaliation for a bullying complaint he had made against his previous manager in April 2024. Shortly after, the Worker was instructed to stop working on the accounts he had been managing, despite an agreement that all employees would continue their tasks until system updates were completed. He was the only one asked to stop working on his accounts, and when he raised this issue, he never received a clear explanation. As a result, he was left with little to do for almost three weeks and was even advised to go home on two occasions to avoid being seen as inactive.

When he was eventually assigned new accounts, they were of a lower level, typically handled by new hires or employees with a lower pay grade. This felt like a demotion, though it was not officially acknowledged as such. He was also told that lower-graded team members were being given opportunities at his expense. After raising these concerns with his new manager and requesting a meeting with the second-line manager, a meeting was held on 19 February 2025. His concerns were heard but largely dismissed, with the explanation that this was not a demotion but an opportunity in a needed area of the business.

The Worker went on sick leave due to the stress caused by this situation and has since followed up numerous times with the second-line manager and HR. Despite his efforts, he received little response until 4 April 2025, when he was informed that a formal process would begin. However, no further action has been taken, and he has not been interviewed or updated on the matter. He stated that he has now been out of work for almost three months, taking medication and feeling lost. He is requesting support from the WRC to ensure he is treated fairly and can return to work.

The Worker’s grievance is ultimately borne from the reassignment of reporting lines and account allocations, which took effect in January 2025, and in respect of which the Worker was not the only worker effected.

The Worker met with Mr B, at his own request for an informal meeting on 19 February 2025, to discuss his concerns in relation to the changes. Further to this initial informal meeting, the Worker lodged a concern with the Employee Concerns Team on 5 March 2025. Although Mr B explained the rationale for the reorganisation during the meeting on 19 February, a change that had initially been welcomed by the Worker, the Worker subsequently requested that Mr B also address concerns regarding his individual treatment by email to Mr B dated 18 March 2025. This request came less than 2 weeks after the Worker formalising his concerns on 5 March 2025.

As the Worker raised his concerns through with both Mr B and the Employee Concerns Team, confusion arose between 24 March and 4 April 2025 regarding who within the Respondent bore responsibility for addressing those concerns in the most appropriate manner.

On 7 April 2025, the Worker was informed that Mr B would conduct an investigation into the Worker’s concerns, a process Mr B was not familiar with and so he required some time to study the process and the expectations of him in his capacity as investigator.  A meeting between the Worker and Mr B was proposed for 12 May 2025 but rescheduled for 14 May 2025 due to unavailability of the Worker. Prior to this meeting taking place, the Worker lodged the instant dispute with the WRC on 8 May 2025.

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

It is well established that neither the Workplace Relations Commission nor the Labour Court will intervene in a dispute referred under this legislation unless the Worker has first exhausted all available internal grievance procedures.

In the present case, the Worker referred the dispute on 8 May 2025, prior to the scheduled meeting on 14 May 2025. As the Employer’s internal grievance procedure was therefore not exhausted prior to the referral of this dispute, I am unable to engage further in this matter and recommend that the Worker consider the dispute to be closed at this time.