Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Embassy

Representatives

Wendy Doyle Wendy Doyle Solicitors

Kevin Langford Arthur Cox LLP

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 - 00005039

27/08/2025

This complaint concerns a dispute between the Worker, a locally recruited employee engaged as a receptionist/consular support officer, and the Employer, arising primarily from an incident which occurred on 7 August 2025 and the subsequent handling of the Worker’s grievance.

The Worker stated that she commenced employment in mid-2023 and that her duties expanded significantly over time due to staff shortages, requiring her to undertake additional consular responsibilities and interact extensively with members of the public. She stated that, on 7 August 2025, while assisting an applicant at the public counter, a supervisor intervened in a manner that was publicly critical and confrontational. The Worker stated that she was interrupted, spoken to in a raised voice, and undermined in front of colleagues and members of the public in relation to an issue concerning a purported appointment that was not reflected on the system.

The Worker further stated that this incident escalated later that day when she was called into the supervisor’s office and spoken to in what she stated was an aggressive and threatening manner. She alleged that remarks were made regarding respect, authority, and cultural differences, and that she was told the matter would be escalated. According to the Worker, the situation further deteriorated when the supervisor followed her into another area of the workplace, continued to raise her voice, and behaved in a manner that required intervention from another colleague to de-escalate the situation. The Worker stated that she felt frightened and distressed by the interaction.

The Worker asserted that this incident was not isolated but formed part of a broader pattern of bullying and inappropriate behaviour within the workplace. She highlighted additional interactions with another colleague which she characterised as derogatory and disrespectful and raised concerns about comments made to her regarding her appearance and other matters. She also alleged that her medical privacy was breached when the supervisor contacted her doctor without her consent in relation to a medical certificate.

The Worker stated that the handling of her grievance internally was fundamentally flawed. She stated that she had little confidence in the objectivity of the process due to close personal relationships among senior staff, that she felt pressured to resolve the matter locally, and that records of meetings were incomplete. While she did engage to some extent with the process, she declined certain meetings and requested that the matter be escalated to Head Office. She ultimately referred the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, asserting that she could not obtain a fair and impartial hearing internally.

The Employer accepted that an incident occurred on 7 August 2025 but disputed the characterisation advanced by the Worker. They stated that the incident arose in the context of a service issue involving a member of the public whose appointment did not appear on the Embassy’s system, noting that there had been ongoing technical issues affecting appointment records. The Employer states that the supervisor became involved in order to resolve the issue and that there were differing accounts of the interaction between the parties.

The Employer further stated that a follow-up discussion took place later that day in which the supervisor addressed concerns regarding the Worker’s manner of communication and reminded her of expected standards when interacting with management. They asserted that such feedback formed part of normal supervisory functions and was appropriate in the circumstances. The Employer rejected allegations of bullying, harassment, or racism and stated that there was no evidence to support such claims. They also disputed certain other allegations made by the Worker, including the account of an interaction with another colleague and the suggestion of any improper conduct in relation to medical information, stating that any contact with a medical provider was limited and for administrative clarification purposes only.

In relation to the handling of the complaint, the Employer stated that a structured grievance procedure was in place and was initiated promptly following the incident. The Worker was invited to participate in meetings with management, including with the Ambassador, but declined to fully engage with aspects of the process and expressed a preference for external determination. A grievance committee was convened, and efforts were made to resolve the matter internally in accordance with established procedures. When this proved unsuccessful, an external investigation by Head Office was commissioned, which remained ongoing at the time of referral of the dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission.

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

Having carefully considered both accounts, it is evident that there is a fundamental dispute of fact regarding the nature and severity of the interaction on 7 August 2025 and whether the conduct complained of by the Worker constitutes bullying or harassment.

However, the Employer had invoked a multi-stage grievance process and efforts were ongoing to address the complaint at the time of the referral of the dispute to the WRC.

It is consistent with established Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court practice, that such internal mechanisms should be fully utilised before external adjudication is sought. In line with that established approach, where an internal process remains ongoing or has not been allowed to conclude, I find it premature to intervene in the dispute and cannot therefore make a recommendation in relation to the substantive allegations.