Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A Local Authority

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 - 00004605

27/06/2025

The complainant worked in a facility to which the public had access, but which exposed him to anti- social behaviour sufficiently grave that it required Garda intervention.

He says that his attempts to get a resolution have been unsuccessful. The respondent has offered a settlement package

He first raised concerns internally in March 2020 and continued to report them as they arose. Written representations were made to management in October 2023, with external escalation to the Health and Safety Authority in March 2025, approximately seventeen months later. This reflects proportional escalation driven by inaction rather than unreasonable complaints.

While the respondent asserts that incidents were not issued as formal complaints, the evidence demonstrates that incidents were known, documented, and escalated within management through Inspector reports and internal emails. No site-specific or updated risk assessments addressing violence and aggression associated with the site operation have been furnished for the period since March 2020, despite evolving risks and repeated reporting.

The respondent accepts that the grievance procedure was not applied and that there was delay in addressing the substance of the grievance. These failures cannot be considered in isolation. The absence of timely investigation, risk assessment, and follow-up occurred within a broader context of known and escalating workplace risks, which explains why the grievance was not addressed promptly or effectively.

He made a protected disclosure investigation and engaged with the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of the Ombudsman which show the seriousness of the concerns raised, the level of escalation required, and the persistence of unresolved issues despite the use of multiple internal and external mechanisms.

The respondent states that relocation was offered and declined. Relocation of the affected employee did not address the underlying hazard and would have transferred the risk to other staff, which is borne out by continued incidents during periods of absence. The subsequent removal of the disputed facility on health and safety grounds confirms that the risk was systemic and environmental in nature.

Management ultimately removed the controversial facility on a trial basis and acknowledged that earlier action could have been taken, including Garda engagement. An offer of settlement, including a financial settlement was offered but declined on the basis that it was inadequate.

The respondent submits that there is no evidence that incidents were issued as formal complaints. However, contemporaneous records demonstrate that incidents were known, documented, and escalated within management.

AnemaildatedAugust16th, 2024,fromthe respondent categorised anincidentas involving abuse and workplace violence and was circulated internally. In addition, multiple emailsfromInspectorsduring2024and2025,circulatedtoseniormanagement,document ongoingantisocialbehaviourandsafetyconcernsrelatingtothefacility.

While such reports may not have been processed as formal grievances at the time, they constitute management records and demonstrate awareness of the issues raised.

The respondent acknowledges that its grievance procedure was not applied and that there was delay in addressing the substance of the grievance. There is no evidence that grievance was formally acknowledged, that the issues raised were assessed as part of an ongoing continuum dating back to March 2020, or that reasonable steps were taken to establish the facts and respond.

In circumstances involving repeated reports of antisocial behaviour, intimidation, and workplace violence, the absence of investigation constitutes a procedural failure.

The respondent denies that there were deficiencies in relation to risk assessment for violence and aggression and asserts that no separate risk assessment was required for the disputed operations.

The respondent states that I declined offers of relocation to another work location. Relocation of the affected employee did not address the underlying risk or resolve the issue giving rise to the complaints. If relocation were intended as a protective measure, the risk would necessarily remain for other employees assigned to the location, which is borne out by continued incidents reported during his absence on sick leave.

The subsequent removal of the facility on health and safety grounds further demonstrates that the issue was systemic and environmental in nature, and that elimination of the hazard, rather than removal of the worker, was the appropriate control measure.

Meetings were held in November and December 2025, which management characterised as positive. The complainant attended these meetings with Trade Union representation and engaged fully in good faith. Many of the matters recorded as “remedies sought” reflected fundamental employer obligations, including provision of a safe place of work, risk assessment, safe systems of work, and measures to address antisocial behaviour.

Atbothmeetings,managementgaveassurancesthatvarious public statementswouldberemoved.Asof10January 2026,this assurancehasnot been implemented,and the noticeremains live.

It is acknowledged that the complainant  had made complaints, and this is well documented in his complaint and submission. The first incident report in relation to the antisocial behaviour was made on August 30th,  2023 and from June 17th,2024 the complainant  in his submission has outlined a number of occasions that he states he experienced antisocial behaviour from the member of the public. There is no evidence that these were ever issued to anyone as a formal complaint.

On May 14th, 2025, the complainant  wrote to Human Resources submitting a Grievance. Employee Relations informed the complainant  that he must submit his Grievance to local level in the first instance. Also, on May 14th, 2025, the complainant  submitted a local level Grievance. He  followed up with local management on June 25th. There was no formal investigation into the complainant’s Grievance.

Also in June 2025, the complainant  issued a Protected Disclosure. This has been investigated and findings made. Management feel that this is not relevant to this claim as it has been dealt with under a different process.

The  complainant  made representations to management and Health & Safety on the location of the disputed facility. This led to him making a complaint to the Health & Safety Authority. The Health & Safety Authority issued a response to the complainant,  and he subsequently put in a complaint to the Ombudsman in relation to the Health & Safety Authority. This is not relevant to this claim as it has been dealt with within under a different process.

The  complainant  has on two occasions refused otters of moves to another work location and refused both offers.

On November 5th, 2025, and after a number of invitations to attend for local engagement, the complainant  and his union representatives attended the HR Department. The complainant  was given an opportunity to discuss his issues and the remedies he was seeking (which were fully set out at the hearing).

It was agreed that  HR would issue a response acknowledging the complainant s complaint and issues and arrange a risk assessment. The disputed social media post would be removed. Management explained that there would be no retaliation and that the issue will continue to be raised with An Garda Siochana. The only outstanding issue was in relation to compensation.

The  complainant  was asked to propose a compensation amount. He and his representatives declined to do so. A subsequent meeting was held on the  December 3rd  2025 again this meeting was deemed by management very positive and they following proposal was issued in order to resolve the issue:

1)       The complainant  will receive a letter acknowledging of his complaint with regard to the gaps in the Grievance Procedure.

2)       Line manager training in relation to the Grievance Procedure will be carried out.

3)       Health and Safety Audit will be carried out in relation to relevant location.

4)       The social media post will be taken down

5)       There will be a compensation payment of €10,000 in full and final settlement of all claims.

The complainant did not accept this settlement and has declined three monetary compensation amounts suggested by the respondent as the final element of full resolution of the matter.

The respondent  acknowledges that the complainant’s Grievance complaint was not adequately dealt with. However, his  accusations of breaches of Health & Safety legislation due to the lack of risk assessment towards dealing with violence and aggression are unfounded.  

The complainant has acknowledged that he was aware of control measures and  at times did intentionally put himself into direct conflict with the individual that he complained of and did not follow the control measures.

Finally, management made the decision to remove the disputed facility on a trial basis to determine if in fact it was the main catalyst for the anti-social behaviour. Management has also reported the issues to An Garda Siochana. The staff including the complainant  are aware of this and management have assured staff that they will report any issues to An Garda Siochana.

Itisacknowledged that management could have acted earlier in withdealingwiththe situation byreportingit to AnGardaSiochana earlier andreachingadecision to remove thedisputed facility. FollowingescalationofthecomplainttoitsHumanResourcesDepartment Senior Managers havemet the complainant  ontwooccasions to determine whether theissuecouldbe resolved.

Unfortunately,althoughtherewerepositivediscussions andpreliminaryagreement onallbutoneaspectof theagreement themattercouldnotultimatelybefullyresolved DCCremainopentoresolvingthematter,despitetheviewthatthereareaspects ofthe complainant’s complaint thatdonotfallwithinthejurisdiction oftheindustrialrelationsactand additionallythataresimplynotaccepted bythe respondent.

The failure to apply the Grievance Procedure and the delay in ultimately addressing the substance of the grievance complaint are what is to be considered.

The respondent  has made every effort to resolve the matter following its escalation within the organisation and has arranged for the complainant  to attend Occupational Health Services to determine what other supports can be made for the complainant  on a medical perspective and h has been provided with access to Staff Support Services.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  The background to the complaint is set out in detail in the complainant’s oral and written submissions.

While the requirements for anonymity in this Recommendation require some facts to be redacted to the point where some important detail has to be sacrificed, suffice it to say that the incidents experienced by the complainant were of the gravest nature. Some flavour of this is evident even from the redacted account above.

It was not hard to discern the impact that this had on the complainant even in the course of the hearing.

The respondent, while it disputes some of the complainant’s assertions about the details of his complaints, acknowledges that there were inadequacies in relation to their processing.

It sets out its efforts to eventually resolve the matter at the meetings of November 5th and December 3rd, 2025, at which the complainant was represented by his trade union and in the course of which settlement proposals emerged.

They included a financial settlement, which, in the context of industrial relations settlements might be regarded as generous, rising after a number of rejected offers, to €10,000.00.

The other elements of the package, set out above in the respondent‘s submission were also important, specifically in addressing any future problems.

The complainant was upset that these non-financial elements had not been activated at the time of his referral of the matter to the WRC, or since. It appears that he may have mis-understood that the offer was made on the basis that ‘nothing was agreed until everything was agreed’ and that his rejection of the financial element of the package put the entire package ‘on hold’.

He did not help his cause by refusing to enter into a negotiation on the financial element, specifically by identifying what would be acceptable.

The complainant may consider himself fortunate that his failure to exhaust that element of the process did not result in a recommendation that he return to the workplace level discussions and fully utilise  and exhaust them.

However, I take into account the ordeal to which the complainant has been subjected and his expressed desire to bring matters to a mutually satisfactory conclusion; an objective shared by the respondent.

The complainant also needs to be clear that expectations of compensation based on reported personal injury settlements are the stuff of fantasy in the context of industrial relations processes.

The regrettable distress caused to him by these events, or the impact on his health are matters to be addressed in a different domain if he wishes to do so. The respondent has made its proposals only in the context of the acknowledged deficits in its grievance machinery.

That is the only permissible context for my  consideration of a resolution. 

The parties are to be commended for the work done in delivering the package on December 3rd, 2025, and it represents a good basis to put the matter behind them. 

The elements of this were.

1)       The complainant  will receive a letter acknowledging his complaint with regard to the gaps in the Grievance Procedure.

2)       Line manager training in relation to the Grievance Procedure will be carried out.

3)       Health and Safety Audit will be carried out in relation to relevant location.

4)       The social media post will be taken down

5)       There be a payment of €10,000

My recommendation is below.

Grievance procedures