Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A social Worker

Service Provider

Representatives

Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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 - 00004729

15/07/2025

The worker commenced employment with the employer in 2023.  His employment ended in 2025. 

In his complaint form to the WRC the worker submits that he was excluded and suffered unfair treatment at work following the making of an allegation against him. Although not formally sanctioned he was treated unfairly by his employer in that he was, removed from frontline duties; denied overnight shifts; relocated to work alone; given menial tasks and excluded from all team communications. He is of the view that the assertion made by his employer that they had been instructed to have him excluded from certain duties was false.

Despite signing an agreement about returning to work the exclusionary acts continued. When requests for the situation to be resolved were not acted upon the worker submits that he lodged a formal grievance. He attended a meeting about his grievance, but no meaningful steps were taken, and he was denied a follow up meeting which he had requested.

The worker believes he was bullied, isolated and financially harmed through this deliberate exclusion, the false justification of restrictions etc. The worker submits that the treatment afforded him has affected his mental health.  He seeks redress for loss of income; workplace exclusion; breach of grievance and safeguarding policies; emotional harm; misrepresentation of external agency instructions; continued restrictions despite being cleared.

At the hearing the worker stated that he had been cleared by the external agency, and there was no instruction that he be restricted in the type of work he should carry out.  However, he was excluded from certain roles.  On foot of this he lodged a grievance with a superior which was not followed up. His concerns were dismissed by email. The worker submitted a second grievance which did not resolve matters, the isolation continued.

The employer’s managing Director stated that following the allegation made against the worker the circumstances were such that it was not possible for him to return to front line duties. This was explained to the worker.

The worker made allegations against his employer; he left abruptly before these allegations could be fully investigated. Overall, the employer did everything they could to assist the worker.

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

I find that the employer acted in good faith and took what it believed to be the correct action in relation to the worker’s return to work.

The worker was not subject to disciplinary sanctions, his grievances were dealt with in a manner, that while not perfect, was sufficient.