ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00004546

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:             14/01/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker referred a dispute on 22 June 2025 in relation to a number of issues she had with the Employer, including lack of access to promotional opportunity, lack of access to first aid training and allegations of bullying and harassment and unsatisfactory handling of these issues by the employer.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker’s dispute was contained in the narrative of the form she submitted to the WRC on 22 June 2025.  The contents of the referral is summarised as follows:

The Worker’s typical working hours were 08:00–09:00 & 13:30 – 17:00 Monday to Thursday, and 13:30 to 18:00 on a Friday.  She recently began a QQI Level 7 Special Needs Assistant college course.

Until the initial issue that arose in March 2025, she was never formally or informally notified of any work-related performance concerns or issues. In fact, her manager frequently provided positive feedback regarding her work, and up until the issues outlined in this submission arose in March 2025, she had always felt she was a trusted and valued member of the team.

The Worker referred to raising an issue with the Employer in March 2025 concerning a child’s welfare.  She was concerned at the reaction and lack of follow up by the Employer, and she considered this was the beginning of the change in their professional relationship.

In May 2025, she became aware that three existing male coworkers were appointed to ‘Deputy Manager’ roles. These appointments were made without any informal or formal advertisement or what could be considered a typical recruitment process and she had not been formally notified of a change in management and had only found out by chance. Furthermore, she found out that the 3 male co-workers also received first aid training, and she was not provided with such training and a rationale as to why she had not been invited to attend such training was not provided. It is important to note that she would be required to open up the afterschool each morning and on occasions she would have worked alone for at least 20 minutes in the morning time until other staff arrived. After she raised the lack of First Aid training, she was eventually provided with this training in May 2025.

She described an altercation she had with another employee and the aftermath.  On 28 May 2025 the Worker found behaviour by a colleague in which the colleague asked the Worker’s daughter to impersonate her on stage to be inappropriate and she told her colleague this in an assertive manner.   She was subsequently accused of bullying and harassment by that employee. The Worker was not told of the specific allegations made against her until August 2025.

The Worker submitted a formal grievance and went on sick leave.  A mediation process was undertaken on 19 May 2025 in which she was offered first refusal on a prospective new after-school scheduled to open in September 2025 and change in her role to Lead Practitioner raising her hourly rate by €1. During the mediation she raised concerns regarding perceived lack of professionalism and instances of inappropriate behaviour by a colleague.  

On 11 June 2025, based on the lack of a timely investigation, lack of management action and the toxic work environment, which was affecting her mental health, she raised two formal grievances:

1) How the bullying allegation had been handled to date.

2) That she felt harassed, and that the allegation of bullying was malicious, a false allegation and defamation to her character.

On 11/06/2025 at 16:46 the Employer emailed her to acknowledge receipt “the grievance” while indicating that she would engage with an external HR provider to assist.

Between 11 June and 27 August 2025 a number of events occurred.  These included a complaint made by the other employee which was received at 12:17 or 13:17 depending on the two different versions she received.   She did not learn of the other employee’s allegations until 27 August 2025 2 days before her return to work date.

On 11 January 2026, in an email and attachment to the WRC, the Worker provided an update outlining the escalation of the issues which she stated led her to constructively dismiss herself on the 7th of October 2025. She stated that she will bring a constructive dismissal case against her previous employer.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer made a written submission summarised as follows:

The Respondent notes the complaints submitted on the WRC form dated 22 June 2025 and responds to these complaints only and no other matter which the Complainant seeks to introduce.

It is submitted that the complaints, which are denied could be the matter of a trade dispute as provided for in the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

In so far as they can be understood, the complaints appear to be that:

• The grievance raised by the employee at a meeting on 5 May 2025 was dismissed by the employer
• The Employer breached the confidentiality of a mediation process conducted between the employee and the employer
• The accusation of bullying made by another employee against the complainant on 29 May 2025 was retaliation against her raising her grievance on 5 May 2025
• Since raising her original grievance the atmosphere has become toxic and she feels she is being pushed out of her employment and that there is a lack of trust and she feels isolated.

All of these complaints have no merit and detailed responses were outlined. 

The grievance of 5 May 2025 was not dismissed.  In fact the Complainant was offered a managerial role.  On the contrary, the Respondent immediately moved to instigate a mediation process.

The Respondent denies there was a breach of confidentiality in the mediation process.  The Complainant’s contention that having mentioned the other employee in the mediation process prompted the other employee to lodge a bullying and harassment complaint against her is without evidence or foundation.

It is denied that the accusation of bullying was a deliberate retaliation for having lodged a grievance.  When the complaint was brought to the attention of the Respondent it sought to convene a meeting of all the parties. Ultimately attempts were not successful and the Respondent engaged the services of an independent outside professional HR Company.

In relation to the complaint that since raising her original grievance the atmosphere became toxic and the Complainant felt isolated, it is the Respondent’s position that if there was a change in atmosphere, it was as a result of the interactions between the Complainant and other employees, some of which occurred outside the workplace.  In relation to issues raised within the worplace, the Respondent dealt with them in a fair and prompt manner with professional advice.

An investigation process into the formal written grievances raised by the Complainant and the other employee was convened on 27 August 2025 and terms of reference circulated as appropriate.  In the event, the Complainant failed to fully engage with the process and resigned her employment on 7 October 2025.

The independent investigation concluded on 20 November 2025, and the report was circulated to the parties, including the Complainant.

It is submitted that for reasons stated, the Complainant’s complaints should be dismissed.

Conclusions:

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 provides,

Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner..

The section also provides that a recommendation shall be made setting out the opinion on the merits of the dispute.

In this instant case, the Worker referred a dispute to the WRC on 22 June 2025, containing the details of the dispute at that time including the Employer’s handling of a bullying & harassment complaint and also the lack of first aid training and the appointment of a new male manager without giving the Worker an opportunity to apply for the job.  On 11 January, some 3 days before the hearing, the Worker submitted an email stating that she intended to bring a constructive dismissal case against the employer. The Worker submitted a very lengthy and detailed document, containing some extremely serious allegations, which were not contained in the original dispute referral form.  References to protected disclosures, whistleblowing and constructive dismissal indicate the Worker’s intention to submit further employment rights complaints.     

In light of the Worker’s intention to submit a constructive dismissal claim and possible protected disclosures claim, and the potential knock on affect any recommendation may have, I conclude that it is not appropriate to make a recommendation on the dispute originally referred by the Worker in this case.    

Recommendation:

Based on the reasons and conclusions above, I decline to make a recommendation in this case.

Dated:   19th of February 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: