Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An office manager

A Service Provider

Representatives

Worker

Donnacha Anhold Carter Anhold & Co., Solicitors

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 - 00004351

23/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004352

23/05/2025

The employee was employed as a manager with the company and on commencement was informed of additional governance duties.  During the early stages of his employment he alleges that insufficient support was given to him by his Line Manager.  In addition, following a period of sick leave, he alleges that the Director was abusive to him.  He alleges that this constituted bullying and that he had to leave the company effectively meaning he was unfairly dismissed.

The employer failed to supply adequate and sufficient resources to enable the worker to complete his role. He was given two laptops, one brand new, one which belonged to a previous employee. The new one, which he had been encouraged to use, had zero information on it, no applications, no software, no outlook.  The Line Manager told the worker that he needed to start using it, even though he was not trained.

The worker was assigned the task of getting contracts ready for successful job applicants.  He was told all templates were saved on the old laptop for the different divisions and roles.  There were templates available which he had to edit. His Line Manager told him to look at what was sent before rather than to show him.  When the worker had finished she would tick what was done correctly and circle what was wrong which was undermining.

Bullying is a gradual wearing down process comprising a sustained form of psychological abuse that makes victims feel demeaned and inadequate.

The worker contracted Covid on in July 2024, and was advised to take time off as per the guidelines, but also to protect the Director as he would have often been using an oxygen tank in his office due to breathing difficulties. Whilst he was off, another Director sent him an email that week, cc'ing the Line Manager, looking for new contracts drawn up, successful interview letters sent out for successful applicants and to get inductions invites sent out. This wasn't done in the worker’s  absence and when he queried it with his Line Manager, she said there was too much going on that week. The worker started working on these when he returned to work. He had to draft every piece of information up for the Line Manager to check, before he could send something out on email. The Line Manager would come between 4pm-5pm to review it, point out what errors there was and expect the worker to have everything rectified before 5pm.

There was constant blame being pointed towards the worker, however nothing put in place to support him.  He was frequently challenged on the content of contracts he had drawn up using the templates.

Before the Line Manager finished up for her annual leave the worker and she spoke one to one after the usual morning meeting with the rest of the staff. She said 'you appear to be struggling'.  The worker responded by saying I'm not struggling however I am overwhelmed. He explained that he was being expected to manage up to 12 mail inboxes, answer constant queries on the company phone and was provided with no training, and constantly being told he was doing things wrong. The Line Manager said that he was still in his induction period which was the first time this had been mentioned.  She asked the worker what training he might benefit from and he replied a structured breakdown of what he should have covered/learned on a weekly or monthly basis, a training plan as such. The Line Manager responded that's something we simply don't provide.

After the Line Manager returned from annual leave the worker asked her how to do an' internal trawl' which a director asked him to do. The Line Manager advised him to look at what was sent before, that it should be on the laptop. This was a constant response that was proving no way beneficial to his learning or development, again, not knowing what he was looking for as he had never done such tasks in this company.

The Line Manager challenged him on her return to work about contracts that he had sent out while she was off. She told him they had the wrong rates of pay on them. The worker was instructed while the Line Manager was off to send drafted contracts to directors for approval before issuing them. He explained to the Line Manager that he had done this and the directors had confirmed the contracts he had drafted had the correct information on them. She responded by saying "Directors make mistakes as well" and it was over to the worker to make sure they were correct.

On 20th August 2024, the worker was unable to get logged onto Outlook. He asked the Line Manager if could she give him the credentials. His request was received with a sigh, and she said I have given you these before. It was becoming apparent there was a reluctance to help. The Line Manager took his laptop and began entering the password, and had put it in wrong several times, and was muttering 'bastard' each time it was wrong. The worker found this completely unprofessional, and he was extremely uncomfortable as he was already apprehensive about asking for any type of help.

There had been several instances with the Director where he spoke to the worker in a humiliating and demeaning manner. On 7th August 2024, the Director openly challenged him in front of a colleague saying  "You were to call me back yesterday but you didn't bother" regarding a query.

The Director also humiliated the worker in relation to information he wanted regarding new staff qualifications.  At the end of the meeting the worker said to his Line Manager that he had to leave as he felt unsafe due to the aggression he had just received from the Director. The worker made contact with his doctor to request a sick line for work related stress.  The doctor issued him with a sick line for work related stress from 21st August 2024- 3rd September 2024.

The worker wanted to reach out to the Director prior to returning to work for a chat, and emailed him on Friday 30th August 2024. The Director replied on Sunday 1st September 2024 stating that the  earliest he would be free would-be nextThursday but if the subject matter is work related you should contact your line manager.

The worker was trying to reach out to speak to someone and because this wasn't acknowledged at this time, it heightened his stress and anxiety again and worse, thought he was going back to work to be 'let go' as he was still in a probationary period.

The staff handbook states, "On return to work from sick leave you must immediately inform your manager. Your manager will arrange a date and time to meet with you to complete a Return-to-Work Form”. This did not happen in this instance.  

Following this and heighted stress/anxiety, the worker requested another sick line from the doctor, something which he did not want to do however he felt he wasn't getting the support he needed. This sick line was dated from 4th September 2024- 17th September 2024. He emailed the Line Manager to request a call with her prior to returning to work on 18th September 2024. They spoke on the telephone and the worker explained he was embarrassed about being off and worried about what he was coming back to as he had never been off work with this reason in the past. The Line Manager explained that when he returned, she would carry out a return to work as standard procedure. She explained that he would require a 'fit to return to work' note from the doctor, which the worker arranged to get.

The worker returned to work on Wednesday 17th September 2024. That morning, he went into the Line Manager’s office to let her know he had returned. She told him to go downstairs and make a cup of tea whilst she was waiting on his return-to-work documents to print. When he left her office, he popped his head into the Director’s office to say good morning.  The Director acknowledged it and asked the worker to close the door to Line Manager’s office if they were having the meeting as he didn't want to hear the conversation as it was private between the worker and the Line Manager.

The Line Manager had gone through the return-to-work form asking the worker the standard questions. He explained that he didn't intend to be off for a further 2 weeks (the period of the second sick line) but felt that he was anxious about coming back, and when he tried to reach out to the Director, and herself, it was declined. The questions were quite standard on the return to work, but one of the questions asked was ‘was there anything he needed to support him’.  The worker replied that he needed some sort of training plan or clarification as to what he needed to be doing and that he would benefit from having a structured plan.  The Line Manager’s response was  "that will be discussed during your supervision". His supervision wasn't due until 1st January 2025, over 3 months later, and again, the worker felt that the support he needed and was asking for was being rejected.

At approximately 1.30pm, the Director asked could he speak to the worker. He started his conversation by pointing his finger in the worker’s face stating "You fucking walked out of here 4 weeks ago and left us up shit creek". The worker was totally taken back by his attitude, tone and manner. He went on to say "And who do you think you are to request a meeting with me, I'm ….., I'm the director of this company and I fucking decide who I meet with and on what terms, not yours or no one else's, while his finger still pointed in the worker’s face. He went on to say "Do you accept that you walked out of here and left us up shit creek", and being completely shocked and intimidated, the worker felt compelled to accept blame as he didn't know what else to say.

The worker emailed in his resignation to his Line Manager the next morning shortly after 7am citing the conversation with the Director.

The Director e-mailed the worker stating "Dear Mr., (worker), I am in receipt of the resignation email you sent to (the Line Manager) on 19th September. I am absolutely shocked by its content, and I totally reject the allegations you have made. I will today refer the matter to our Company Solicitor for his record and considered opinion. In my very brief, and intended supportive, conversation with you I reinforced your need to focus on recruitment, to avoid involvement in HR matters and I advised you of my consent to a meeting the following week which you were requesting. I mentioned the fact that HR matters had accumulated in your absence, and the Company had temporarily been up 'S*** Creek' (An unfortunate colloquial phrase) but I attached no personal blame on your account for that situation. This Company will not accept any further email correspondence in this matter.”

The worker felt the context of this email was threatening (referring the matter to his company solicitor) and completely unprofessional from someone in his position of an organisation.

There are allegations by the employee that certain conduct of the employer within the employment context was not acceptable to him and in that regard the employee complains of the following.

·       He was assigned tasks that he was unable to complete, and wasn't given full training and orientation in relation to same.

·       There was not enough time taken with him to show him how to complete tasks.

·       The templates drawn up for him were not adequate for work purposes.

·       There was unprofessional conduct and foul language used when meetings were taken place with the employer and the employee

These allegations are not accepted and are refuted by the employer and it is a matter for the worker also to be robust as an employee in the employment context and whilst it is accepted that there have been difficult conversations within the context of the employment setting, the severity of what is alleged is not accepted.

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

The worker has referred two complaints under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  These relate to Unfair Dismissal and secondly, to Bullying and Harassment.

In relation to the complaint of unfair dismissal it is clear that the worker was not formally dismissed and therefore the question of due process does not arise.  Also, as he had less than the 12 months service required by the Unfair Dismissals Act he does not have the protection of that Act.  His argument is one of constructive dismissal.  Constructive dismissal usually occurs where there has been a significant breach of contract and/or the behaviour of the employer is such that the employee can no longer endure it and is entitled to view the employment relationship as ended.  There is an expectation that the employee will use internal procedures, such as a Grievance Procedure or Dignity at Work Procedure in order to afford the employer the opportunity to rectify any issues that may be of concern to the employee.  The worker felt that he could not use these policies as his complaint would have been against his Line Manager and the Director.  However, it is not unusual for such complaints to be made against senior personnel and the employer should at least have been given the opportunity to conduct an impartial investigation with, if necessary, the use of an external investigator. The employee did not utilise any internal procedures and accordingly I do not recommend in his favour on this issue.

The Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work) Order 2020 retains the same definition of bullying which was found in the previous codes of practice:

“Workplace bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could be reasonably regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work, but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying”.

It is clear from the hearing that the employee was considerably stressed due to issues at work in his new job and also, according to himself at the hearing, some personal stress.

The worker’s account of his experience is indicative of a high-pressure environment where the worker’s needs as a new employee were not prioritised to the extent they should have been by his Line Manager.  Nothing in the evidence he gave indicates that the Line Manager was abusive other than in not helping the employee, particularly in the area of removing uncertainty.  Removing uncertainty is key function of any manager and is particularly important in the induction process.  It is clear from the evidence of the worker that the induction process was poor and did not meet his needs.   Poor induction may lead to failure and high turnover of staff to the company’s detriment but is not of itself bullying.

The account of the worker’s interactions with the Director point to occasions where the worker felt very uncomfortable.  The Director was unable to attend the hearing due to health issues, however I note that he denies the worker’s account of their final meeting. While these incidents as described by the worker may be unacceptable I do not believe that they would reach the threshold to be described as bullying.  Again, no complaint was made by the worker under the company’s Dignity at Work policy.  I therefore no not recommend in his favour on this issue.

The employee made the point at the hearing that he was pursuing the complaint to highlight the need for the company to improve and I believe this point is well made.

Unfair dismissal, bullying, induction