Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

  Self

Brian Murphy,  Byrne Wallace Shields 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 - 00004418

06/06/2025

The Worker is a healthcare professional and has worked for the Employer for 35 years.  The Worker submitted a Dignity at Work complaint against her manager.  She was not satisfied that the process undertaken by the Employer and considers that it was unfair and lacked a methodology that would have ensured a thorough investigation of the issues she raised.  She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 06/06/2025.

The Employer stands over the report of the investigation into the Worker’s complaints and robustly rejects the allegations made by the Worker in relation to the investigation process and the outcome.

The Worker remains on certified sick leave due to workplace issues which remain unresolved.

The Worker made a substantial three-part written submission and appendices to the WRC in advance of the hearing which outlined the chronology of events in relation to the investigation.  The Worker also submitted a significant submission in relation to the areas of concern to her about the investigation process.  She was given an opportunity at the hearing to outline her analysis of the areas of concern and provide any clarification requested by the Adjudication Officer.

The Worker submitted her complaint against her line manager in February 2023.  This was a complaint made under the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy.  This complaint had seven separate sections and the Worker believes that some were inter-related.  The Employer conducted a preliminary screening and deemed that this complaint would be investigated under the Dignity at Work policy.

The Employer appointed an Investigator from their panel of Investigators in March 2024.  Draft terms of reference were issued in May 2024.  The Worker submitted proposed amendments but most were not accepted.   The Worker attended an interview on 27/06/2024 and she was issued with transcripts of this interview.  The Worker was also provided with transcripts of the interview with the Worker who is the subject of her complaints.  She provided a comprehensive response to these transcripts.  There was a delay in relation to the report and the Worker now understands that part of the reason was the Worker under investigation had decided to take legal advice and was facilitated with extended deadlines.  The Worker was not told about this and was not provided with copies of the submissions made.

The Worker’s main concerns about the investigation are summarised as follows:

1.       The investigation did not take into account the definitions of bullying outlined the in the Employer’s policy.  The investigation did not take into account the fact that the policy explicitly stated that bullying should meet the criteria of “ongoing series of accumulation of negative targeted behaviours…”   It is the Worker’s position that the complaints made by her are interlinked and therefore constitute a series of ongoing targeted behaviours against her and this was not taken into consideration by the investigation.   The Worker has also highlighted many other areas in the policy which were not taken into consideration during the process or which did not align with the policy.

2.       Terms of reference:  The Worker believes that the Terms of Reference are designed to outline the scope of an investigation, timelines and the methodology to be employed.  She had concern about what appeared to be an indefinite duration and the possibility that there may be other Investigators involved.  There were redrafted terms of reference but the Worker understands that these were never issued to the Investigator.

3.       Communications with the Investigation Commissioner:  The Worker outlined her concerns in relation to the communication she had with the investigation commissioner.  She feels that she was not afforded fair procedures and gave examples of being asked to attend an on-line meeting when she had requested an in-person meeting and not being allowed to bring certain documentation to the interview which she believes would have corroborated some of the complaints made.  The Worker also noted that her queries about the Final Report and adherence to timelines were never clarified.

4.       Interview Methodology:  The Worker believes that the Investigator did not have a working knowledge of her complaints in advance of her interview and she believes that the Investigator decided that it would be sufficient to allow the Worker to be heard.  There was no attempt to seek clarification and explanations and the Investigator did not embark on a fact-finding exercise. The Investigator had a responsibility to clarify any areas with the Worker during her interview but did not do so.  The Worker also outlined concerns in relation to the interview conducted with the Worker who is the subject of the complaints.  There was no attempt to question the person in relation to the Worker’s complaints and it was apparent that there was no attempt to put any questions to establish the facts or to establish that the behaviours complained of did or did not occur.  The Worker believes that there was a fundamental breach of fair procedures and the principles of natural justice.  The Worker also notes that she was precluded for submitting further information but the other Worker was allowed to submit further documentation.  The Worker also highlighted that the transcripts of the other Worker’s interview show that she displayed some bullying references to the Worker but the Investigator did not challenge this.

5.       Draft Report:  A draft report was issued on 19/11/2024.  In this report three of the complaints were upheld and four were not.  This draft report highlighted the fact of insufficient evidence as a reason why the complaints were not upheld.  The Worker noted that there was a two-week timeframe to allow for responses to be submitted.  Despite this the Worker has raised a concern that the Final Report was not issued until 06/05/2025.  She now believes that a separate process was undertaken with the Worker under investigation and she had no knowledge of this and was not advised of this or provided with any of the submissions made by the other Worker during this time.  When the Final Report was issued the Investigator decided to change one of the upheld findings to not upheld and without any explanation for doing so.

6.       Legal Representation:   The Worker submits that the other Worker was allowed legal representation after the draft report was issued.  As she was not advised of this, she considered this to be “covert”. The fact that she was not provided with copies of these submissions further led her to believe that there was “covert” legal representation taking place.  There were no objections to the terms of reference from the other Worker and the departure from policy and procedures was facilitated without any regard to the additional stress this caused the Worker and the stress caused by the delay of the Final Report.  It is the Worker’s view that this delay was unreasonable.

7.       Final Report: The Worker believes that the Investigator did not establish the factual circumstances which led to the complaints and the Investigator failed to examine all relevant matters.  The end result is that this investigation was not conducted in an unbiased and impartial manner.  The interview transcripts confirm that there was no attempt to establish the facts.

8.       Other concerns: The Worker had a reasonable expectation that her complaints would be examined as part of an overall pattern of behaviour as provided for in the policy but the Investigator did not do so.  Instead, she looked at each complaint in isolation and therefore took no account of contextually relevant information.  There were many occasions during the other Worker’s interview where the Investigator did not seek any explanations or clarifications in relation to aspects of the complaint which should have been done.  That interview was “a superficial and biased examination”. The Investigator made no attempt to trace any connection or see if a pattern emerged across all these incidents, meetings and communications.  The Worker believes that the Investigator consistently denied the Worker any semblance of natural justice and her failure to challenge the Worker under investigation in relation to the actions complained of lead the Worker to wonder why this happened.  The Worker was also denied the opportunity to provide further evidence of the victimising behaviour by the other Worker and she was told that this was because the investigation had commenced but nothing of any substance had commenced at that time.

It is the Worker’s conclusion that this investigation failed to do what it was established to do.  It did not take account of the key concepts and principles outlined in the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy.  The investigation did not adhere to the terms of reference.

The Worker believes that she was subjected to repeated adverse and inappropriate workplace behaviours since 2017.  Blame was apportioned to the Worker and she was denied fair procedures in having her complaints investigated.

The Worker also submits that she was the recipient of further “systemic bullying or a process of attrition” once she submitted her complaints.  The Worker feels that the Investigator sought to downplay and airbrush the complaints she did not wish to uphold and sought to blame the complainant for the actions of the Worker under investigation and cite the word “relationship” as a means of explaining the conduct complained of.

The Employer confirms that the Worker submitted a formal complaint on 03/02/2023 under the Dignity at Work Policy.  The Worker confirmed that she did not wish to engage in any of the informal procedures outlined in the policy.  The Employer conducted a preliminary screening and this determined that the complaint fell within the scope of the policy.  An independent external Investigator was appointed in March 2023.  The Worker raised issues with the terms of reference and made a complaint to the WRC in May 2023.  This complaint raised issues in relation to the proposed investigation and the independence of the Investigator.  The Investigator decided to step down although there was no basis for the complaint.

Another Investigator was appointed on 10/04/2023.  The Worker provided substantial documentation to the Investigator who interviewed the Worker on 27/06/2024.  Notes of the various interviews were exchanged.  A draft report issued on 19/11/2024 and this upheld three of the Workers complaints and four were not upheld.  The worker against whom the allegations were made sought an extension of time to respond to the draft report as she had now engaged legal advisors.  This extension resulted in a lengthy written response from the other Worker’s solicitors on 20/01/2025.    This was responded to by the Investigator on 17/04/2025 and a Final Report was issued on 24/04/2025.   The Final Report upheld two of the complaints and five were not upheld.

The Worker lodged a complaint with the WRC on 25/01/2025 in relation to the delay in producing the Final Report and this was withdrawn as the Final Report was issued before the case was heard in the WRC.  The Worker submitted the current complaint on 06/06/2025 in relation to her dissatisfaction with the conduct and the outcome of the investigation.

The Employer’s submission in relation to some of the issues raised by the Worker are summarised as follows:

a)       Terms of Reference and the investigation meeting:  The terms of reference which were issued were standard for investigations under the policy.  Some changes were made by the Investigation Commissioner and these included the duration of the investigation, the use of a stenographer and the definition of bullying.  The Employer acknowledges that the revised terms of reference were not issued to the Investigator and submits that this had no material impact on the investigation given the minimal differences.

The Worker raised issues about being contacted by the investigations unit to arrange a meeting with the Investigator.  This is standard practice. Her concern about being contacted on a Friday is not proper as Friday is a normal working day.  The meeting was rescheduled twice to facilitate the Worker.

The Investigator reviewed the 274-page submission sent in by the Worker.  The Investigator did ask the Worker to refer to her supporting documentation which is considered normal practice.

The Investigator was very well aware that a number of the Worker’s complaints were intertwined and reference was made to this at the investigation meeting.

b)      Interview with the Worker against whom the complaints were made.  The Employer and the Investigator reject the Worker’s allegation that there was a “pre-inquiry understanding” with the Investigator and the Worker who was the subject of the complaints.

c)       The Employer submits that Investigators are permitted to exercise discretion in relation to how interviews are conducted and a core element is to ensure that respondents are provided with an opportunity to fully address and respond to the complaints made. In that context the role of an Investigator is fact finding and not adversarial.  The Worker who was the subject of the complaints was afforded every opportunity to respond to the complaints.

d)      The draft report was issued to the Worker on 19/11/2024 and the Investigator received comments from the Worker which were reviewed and considered.

e)      The Employer has acknowledged that while the Worker was advised on the initial delay in relation to the Final Report, she was not advised of the ongoing delays caused by the engagement with the legal representatives of the Worker who was the subject of the complaints.

f)        The Employer rejects the Worker’s assertion that the Final Report is inherently flawed and fundamentally unfair.  It also rejects the assertion that the policy and procedures were breached. The independent Investigator applied fair procedures and both parties wereinterviewed and given an equal opportunity to present their perspectives and supporting evidence without any preconception or bias. All notes of interviews were shared.

g)       The Worker alleges that her complaints were not considered by the Investigator as part of an overall pattern in reaching her findings.  The findings were based on the evidence relevant to each allegation and two of the allegations upheld that there was a breach of the Dignity at Work policy.

h)      The Employer rejects the assertion that the Worker who was the subject of the investigation was afforded treatment which was at odds with fair procedures and specifically that this Worker was covertly allowed to introduce legal representation.  The Employer submits that the Worker concerned has a right to obtain legal advice at any stage during the process and the Employer had no role in this and did not contribute to the cost of this advice.  The Employer accepts that there was an oversight in relation not providing documents to the Worker which were submitted by the other Worker’s legal representative.  The Employer also denies that the outcome was changed due to legal threats.  The Investigator considered the additional information and made her findings on that basis.  The two allegations against the Worker under investigation were upheld despite the Worker’s view of alleged legal “threats”.

The Employer stands over the Final Report and wishes to robustly reject the allegations made by the Worker concerning the investigation process and outcome.  The Investigator conducted the investigation in accordance with the terms of reference and the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy.  These provide fair procedures and natural justice to the parties and particularly the person against whom the complaints are made.

The Worker has a right to be unhappy with the outcome of the investigation.  However, this does not mean that she can made unfounded allegations against the Investigator and the investigation process.

This is a dispute which was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 arising from a Dignity at Work investigation conducted by the Employer.

It is well accepted that a Dignity at Work investigation is initiated following the submission of a written complaint by on or behalf of a Worker.  When such a complaint is deemed to fall within the scope of the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy it is progressed to a formal investigation ordinarily conducted on an independent basis.  In accordance with fair procedures the Worker against whom the complaint is made is afforded an opportunity to respond in writing to the complaints and/or allegations.  The investigation typically proceeds on the basis of the actual complaint and the response, supplemented by interviews with the parties and any relevant witnesses.  Interview notes are circulated and the parties are afforded an opportunity to submit any comments.  Parties are allowed submit supporting documentation or other relevant evidence.  This is essentially the process that was followed in this present case.

It is acknowledged by the Employer that delays arose during the course of this investigation.  These delays included the appointment of an Investigator, delays in agreeing the terms of reference and further delays which are attributable to the engagement of legal representatives acting on behalf of the Worker under investigation.  The Employer also acknowledges that the Worker was not informed at the time of this development and was not provided with copies of the representations made on behalf of that Worker.   Arising from these matters and from broader concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation, including the interview with the Worker against who the complaints were made, the Worker referred the despite to the WRC on 06/06/2025 seeking an investigation under Section 13 of the Act.  The role of an Adjudication Officer is to examine the dispute between the parties with a view to determining whether a recommendation can be made that would assist in resolving the matter. In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant documentation and oral submissions presented to me by the parties.

The applicable standard is that of the balance of probabilities.  This requires that for an allegation to be substantiated or rejected, one account of events must be more probable than the other.  I have applied this standard and undertook a neutral assessment of the dispute.

Having considered the matter I am not satisfied, either conclusively or on the balance of probabilities, that the complaint in relation to the investigation has been substantiated.   While I accept that there were flaws and delays in the investigation process, it is well established that an investigation such as that conducted by the Employer does not have to be perfect; it must, however, be fair.  Having regard to the totality of the process I am not satisfied that the identified procedural shortcomings reached the threshold necessary to render the investigation fundamentally unfair.

Having considered all the documentation and the submissions, I find that the complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 is not substantiated.

While the complaint has not been substantiated, I consider it appropriate to make the following observations with a view to assisting the parties in restoring working relationships and the risk of similar disputes arising the future.

1.        Communication during investigations:  The Employer should ensure that during any future workplace investigations, all parties are kept appropriately informed of material procedural developments, including delays and any factors impacting timelines.  A communications protocol such as this can assist in maintaining confidence in the process and in managing expectations.

2.       Timelines of investigations:  While some delays may be unavoidable, particularly where external parties or legal representatives are involved, investigations should be progressed as expeditiously as possible.  The Employer may wish to review their procedures in relation to the appointment of Investigators and finalising terms of reference.

3.       Procedural clarity:  The Employer should consider providing clear guidance to all parties at the outset of an investigation regarding process, indicative timelines and the role of representatives where applicable.  This may assist in avoiding misunderstandings and perceptions of procedural imbalance.

4.       Workplace Mediation or Facilitation:  Without prejudice to the findings, the stated position of any of the Worker or the Employer and the protracted nature of the issues between the Worker and her Line Manager, the parties are encouraged to consider engaging in workplace mediation or facilitated dialogue with a view to rebuilding professional working relationships and addressing any residual issues arising from this dispute.

Investigation process.  Fair procedures.