ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004346
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Occupational Therapy Manager | Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Colm Lawless | Employee Relations Manager |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00004346 | 23/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00004347 | 23/05/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 04/02/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 23/05/2025. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 29/05/2023and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing, and was represented by Mr Colm Lawless. The Employer was represented by an Employee Relations Manager and one other representative from the Employer.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the respondent on 06/04/1998. A complaint was submitted on her behalf to the WRC on 23/05/2025. The dispute relates to an interaction which took place at a meeting on 27/10/2023. She believes that the Employer did not deal with the matter appropriately. She is seeking the assistance of the WRC to request the Employer to arrange a mediation meeting and that the Employer recognises the hurt that has occurred due to its failure to resolve the matter locally and in a timely manner. The Employer submits that the Worker did not utilise the formal stage of the Grievance Procedure at any stage. The Employer cannot compel any employee to issue a written apology. The Employer also notes that they understood that the matter was resolved in November 2023 and they had no knowledge that it was not until the Worker raised the matter again in March 2025. The Employer is satisfied that the matter was properly dealt with and will not agree to reopen the matter again. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker is an Occupational Therapy Manager. At a meeting on 27/10/2023 another senior employee made comments, which she described as “derogatory utterances” and which had the effect of humiliating her and causing her a lot of upset and these comments were made in the presence of other senior managers. She attempted to resolve the matter informally with the other employee and received no response. She was advised by a manager to see if she could address the matter with the employee but without success. The Worker raised the issue with management in March 2025. She did not get any follow up until August 2025 when she was advised that the Employer felt that the matter was considered closed. The Worker submitted her complaint to the WRC on 23/05/2025 requesting assistance in the form of a recommendation that the Employer would arrange a mediation meeting between the Worker and the other employee with a view to seeking a withdrawal of the comments made on 27/10/2023. She is also seeking that the Employer recognises the hurt which has been perpetuated by its failure to resolve the matter locally and in a timely fashion and to ask the Employer to set out a plan to mitigate the likelihood of this kind of incident recurring. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer accepts that the Worker raised this issue on 03/11/2023. At no stage did she raise a grievance or alternatively submit a complaint under the Employers Dignity at Work Policy. She raised the issue again in March 2025 and it is the Employer’s position that the issue was managed appropriately in an informal manner and that reasonable steps were taken to address the Worker’s concerns. The Employer deemed this matter closed when the other employee clarified the nature of the comments made. The Employer notes that the Worker is seeking a written apology, but the Employer has no power to compel any employee to do so. The various procedures such a grievance and Dignity at Work were always available to the Worker and she decided not to avail of these. In that context the Employer notes that the Worker is employed in a senior role and would be familiar with the relevant policies and procedures. The Employer does not accept that the renewed engagement by the Worker on this matter in March 2025 is grounds for reopening the matter. There was no engagement or communication by or from the Worker from October 2023 until March 2025 and it is entirely reasonable to consider the matter resolved and closed. The Employer acknowledges that the Worker is held in high regard. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. This dispute has arisen from a workplace meeting held on 27/10/2023 during which comments made by an employee were perceived by the Worker to be upsetting and damaging to her professional reputation. The Worker submits that her informal efforts to address this matter did not result in a resolution and that she continued to raise the issue on an informal basis with various managers. In March 2025 she raised it again on the basis that it remained unresolved.
The Employer’s position is that, if the Worker felt the matter was unresolved or inadequately addressed it was incumbent upon her to invoke the formal procedures which the Employer has in place. The Employer submits that no formal complaint was progressed by the Worker between November 2023 and March 2025 and that, in those circumstances, it was entirely reasonable to regard this matter as concluded.
In assessing this dispute, I am required to consider the respective responsibilities of the parties involved in this dispute and their roles within the Employer’s established procedures. It is not disputed that the formal procedures were available to the Worker and that, given her senior role, she was aware of them. While the Worker maintains that she continued to raise her concerns informally, it is not disputed that she never sought to escalate the matter through any of the formal channels available to her for that purpose.
There is a material inconsistency on the part of the Worker in asserting, on the one hand, that her Employer failed to resolve the issue in a timely and effective manner, while on the other, electing not to avail of the procedures specifically in place to secure such a resolution. An employee who chooses not to invoke the established grievance mechanisms cannot reasonably attribute the absence of formal resolution solely to the Employer.
I do not find the Worker’s explanation for her failure to formalise her complaint to be persuasive. In these circumstances, responsibility for the failure to progress the matter through the appropriate procedural framework rests with the Worker. The consequences that flow from that omission must therefore be borne by her. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In light of the Worker’s failure to pursue or escalate her grievance through the established formal procedures which were always known and available to her, had having regard to the substantial delay that has arisen since, I recommend that this matter is now regarded as concluded.
I am also of the view that given the passage of time and the Employer’s confirmation that they will continue to deem the matter concluded there is no reality to the proposition that a recommendation would provide any assistance to the parties which would voluntarily resolve this dispute.
I further recommend that the Worker accept the Employer’s assurance that she continues to be held in high regard as an employee.
Dated: 27th of February 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Grievance. Dispute resolution. |