Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Safety Officer

A Hospital

Representatives

Emma Cutlip of SIPTU

Andrea Tancred of IBEC

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 - 00004242

06/05/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 12th August 2019 and remains in employment as a safety support officer. He has raised this dispute because he says that a complaint that he raised in 2021 was never properly addressed.

The Worker says that the dispute has arisen because of the Employer’s handling of grievances. In 2021, he made a complaint under the Dignity at Work policy because a poster of him in the workplace had been defaced on two occasions, his locker had been damaged and a colleague had behaved in an aggressive manner. He stated that he felt pressured by HR to keep his complaint at an informal level and he said that he would need some time to think about this. In 2023, he raised the issue again and wished to progress his complaint to a formal process but was told that it had been closed in 2021. He said that this was done without his consent and he raised a grievance which he described as relating to both the handling by HR of his 2021 complaint and the complaint itself which he still wished to progress.

The Worker asserts that the processes applied were biased, procedurally flawed and inconsistent with principles of natural justice, resulting in significant detriment to his health and wellbeing. He also maintains that the handling of his complaints has left him unable to return to work without appropriate accommodations.

The Worker described a pattern of workplace incidents, including alleged bullying behaviour, exclusion, and inappropriate management responses to concerns he raised, particularly in relation to health and safety matters. He maintained that these incidents were not properly investigated and that responses from management were delayed, inconsistent, or dismissive.

The Worker stated that he engaged with the grievance process at multiple stages, including submitting detailed accounts and participating in meetings. He said that his contributions were mischaracterised and that he was incorrectly portrayed as unwilling to resolve the issues, despite actively proposing solutions. He further submitted that procedural irregularities persisted in later stages, including inaccuracies in reports, failure to properly consider substantive elements of his appeal, and a lack of transparency in decision-making.

The Worker’s position is that the grievance remained unresolved over an extended period and continued to cause distress. He stated that efforts to revisit the matter in subsequent years did not result in a fair or satisfactory outcome, and that he has lost confidence in the Employer’s HR processes.

In addition, the Worker highlighted concerns regarding his return to work, stating that proposed arrangements did not take account of medical advice and involved placement in proximity to individuals connected with his complaints. He asserts that this has prevented him from returning to work and has exacerbated his condition.

Overall, the Worker maintains that the Employer’s handling of his grievances amounted to a serious failure to follow fair procedures and to uphold his dignity at work, leading to a prolonged period of stress, anxiety, and deterioration in his health. He seeks recommendations including appropriate workplace accommodations, improvements in grievance handling and training, and compensation in respect of the distress caused.

The Employer outlined that the Worker’s complaint arose from a grievance initially raised in June 2021 under the Dignity at Work policy, and a subsequent grievance in 2023 concerning the handling of that earlier complaint. The Employer sets out that the Worker was employed in various roles from 2019 onwards and that the organisation operates comprehensive policies governing dignity at work and grievance procedures.

The Employer stated that the Worker’s 2021 concerns were addressed through the informal stage of the Dignity at Work process. These concerns related to an alleged attempt to interfere with a locker, the defacing of a workplace poster displaying the Worker’s image, and an incident involving another employee raising their voice and striking a desk. The Employer maintains that each of these matters were considered by management. It submits that the locker incident could not be conclusively determined to be deliberate, as a staff member reported accidentally causing the damage, and no evidence of intentional wrongdoing was identified. In relation to the defaced poster, the Employer accepts that this occurred but states that there was no evidence as to who was responsible, and steps were taken to address respect in the workplace and relocate the poster. Regarding the incident involving another employee, the Employer submits that while inappropriate behaviour occurred, it was not directed at the Worker and was addressed at the time.

The Employer further outlined that multiple meetings took place with the Worker in June and July 2021, including meetings involving management and HR. It submitted that the Worker confirmed during these engagements that he wished the matter to remain at the informal stage and did not wish to proceed to a formal complaint. While the Worker later asserted that a further meeting took place at the end of July 2021, for which no minutes were provided, the Employer states that no record of this meeting could be located despite searches. The Employer emphasises that the Worker did not pursue the complaint further at that time.

The Employer says that in October 2023 the Worker raised a new grievance regarding the handling of the 2021 complaint, including the absence of meeting records and an assertion that the matter had not been resolved. This grievance was investigated by a senior HR manager. The Employer states that the investigation found that reasonable efforts had been made in 2021 to address the Worker’s concerns and that the issues had been dealt with insofar as possible at that time. While some uncertainty remained regarding whether the complaint had been formally closed, the investigation concluded that there was no evidence the Worker had sought to progress the matter after 2021 and that the lapse of time rendered the grievance inconclusive.

The Employer further states that the Worker appealed this outcome. The appeal found that the appropriate procedures had been followed both in 2021 and in the subsequent grievance process, and that the original complaint had not progressed beyond the informal stage by the Worker’s own choice. It was also noted that the Worker accepted he had not escalated the issue at the time, citing personal reasons.

The Employer’s position is that it acted fairly and in accordance with established procedures throughout. It submits that the Worker was afforded access to both the Dignity at Work policy and the grievance procedure, that his concerns were addressed promptly at the time, and that he chose not to advance the matter to the formal stage. The Employer also states that the absence of certain meeting records does not negate the fact that the Worker could have progressed his complaint through formal channels, which he did not do.

Finally, the Employer contends that the Worker failed to exhaust internal procedures prior to referring the matter externally. It argues that the role of the Adjudication Officer is limited to assessing whether fair procedures were applied, rather than reinvestigating the substance of the complaint, and submits that there is no basis to find merit in the claim as the Worker did not fully utilise the available internal mechanisms.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The documentation provided was extensive, reflecting the prolonged nature of the events in question, and it is neither necessary nor practicable to set out the full detail of the history of this dispute. I have, however, considered the history in its entirety in reaching this recommendation.

The impact that these events had on the Worker was clear to me at the hearing of this dispute. It has obviously caused a considerable amount of distress over a prolonged period of time.

However, I must be clear that my role in this dispute is to investigate if the Employer’s response was procedurally correct. It is well established that the role of an Adjudication Officer is not to substitute their own view on the substance of a complaint but rather to investigate if the procedures followed in response were fair.

The Worker stated that he was unaware that his 2021 complaint had been closed. While the individual who recorded the note indicating closure has since left the organisation and is therefore unable to provide any account of the decision, I find that there was a procedural failure in that the Worker was not properly notified of the closure at the relevant time. Formal written notification of an intention to close the complaint would have afforded the Worker a fair opportunity to indicate whether he wished to pursue the matter further at that time. In the absence of such communication, the Worker was effectively deprived of that opportunity. It is likely that the grievance raised in 2023 could have been avoided had the Worker been informed in 2021 that the complaint would be closed unless he indicated otherwise. The absence of any record of such correspondence amounts, in my view, to a procedural deficiency.

The Employer stated that the Worker effectively did not exhaust internal procedures in relation to his 2021 dignity at work complaint. I do not agree. When the matter was raised again in 2023, the Worker asked that the substance of that complaint be investigated and the investigation outcome titled “final hearing report” and dated 1st August, 2024 does in fact address those issues. I am therefore satisfied that the Worker exhausted the procedures available to him.

That report concluded that of the three dignity at work complaints relating to a damaged locker, the Worker’s poster being defaced on two occasions and the behaviour of a colleague; the first was inconclusive, the second was upheld but the perpetrator was unknown and the third was partially upheld.

That investigation took into account a statement from the head of the Worker’s section in which it was outlined what steps had been taken to address the complaints. He said that he handed out a hard copy of the policy with the HR leaflet and explained the contents of the policy. He met with the Worker’s team and pointed out that anyone can raise a grievance with no repercussions and asked the Worker’s senior officer to monitor his team. He made clear to all senior officers that he expected their support in ensuring the policy is adhered to.

The Worker said that he was encouraged by HR representatives to resolve matters informally. While the Employer relies on the existence of policies and procedures, it is clear that the effective operation of such procedures depends on management appropriately directing employees towards them. In this regard, the Worker was discouraged in 2021 from invoking the formal bullying and harassment procedures and this represents a procedural failing.

I am also concerned that the defacement of the Worker’s image on two occasions was not adequately investigated at the time. It must have been clear to the Employer from these incidents that bullying was taking place and yet no investigation into who the perpetrator was or a proper and considered engagement with the Worker’s team took place at the time or at all. While it is commendable that the Worker’s head of section brought the policy to the attention of all teams, this did not go far enough to address the issue. The fact that the perpetrator was unknown does not, in itself, address how there was a failure to investigate. A reasonable employer would have carried out an investigation to determine if the perpetrator could be identified. It was stated that there was no CCTV in the area, but this does not preclude the Employer from investigating and making enquiries with the relevant teams as well as making clear that such acts could be subject to disciplinary procedures. There was a procedural failing to adequately investigate and address the matter.

While I accept that the Employer has devoted a considerable amount of time and resources in what I consider to be a good faith attempt to resolve these issues, there have been procedural failures and the Worker’s perception that the issues have not been adequately addressed by the policies available is very understandable.

For the reasons set out above, I recommend that the Employer ensures that all members of the Workers team undergo structured training on both Dignity at Work and Bullying & Harassment policies. I recommend a review of the Employer’s administrative actions in so far as they relate to the opening, progressing and closing of complaints and grievances.

The Worker has asked that I also make a recommendation in relation to his return to work, however that is a matter for a medical professional and not something that I am qualified to make an assessment on. I do however recommend that the Employer implements any reasonable accommodations identified by any occupational health assessment.

Finally, for the procedural failings that have occurred, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €2,500 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Industrial relations dispute