Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Retail Store

Representatives

Represented herself 

Represented by management

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 - 00004730

15/07/2025

The employer is a specialist retail business with a number of stores in Ireland.  In September 2022, the worker commenced in the role of supervisor in a store in Meath.  Supervisors report to deputy managers, who in turn, report to store managers.  District managers are responsible for around 10 stores in their districts.  Apart from the worker, the relevant personnel concerned with this matter are the deputy manager in the store where she was a supervisor and the district manager for Leinster.  From here on, I will refer to the deputy manager as “DP” and to the district manager as “DRM.”

In March 2025, DP moved to from a Dublin store to the County Meath store.  The store manager position was vacant at the time and, to assist his development as a future store manager, he was assigned the role of “store lead.”

Chronology of Events Leading to this Dispute

On Sunday, April 27th, the worker sent an email to DRM, in which she raised concerns about how she was treated by DP.  She said that he was dismissive of her opinion, and that he made a remark that he should have known better than to ask a woman.  She said that he referred to her as “darling,” although she had asked him not to use that term.  On one occasion, when she responded to a query from DP about stock corrections, she said he was aggressive and confrontational.  When she told him that she didn’t appreciate his tone, she said that he responded by huffing and rolling his eyes, although he apologised, and said he was having a bad day.

The worker said that, on another occasion, as she was speaking with a colleague, DP stood uncomfortably close behind her and blew air on her neck.  When she moved away, she said that he told her to smile.  The worker said that DP instructed her to handle money inappropriately, hiding a cash discrepancy in the safe and not dealing properly with missing charity funds.  Concluding her email on April 27th, the worker said that she no longer felt respected or at ease at work and she asked DRM to address DP’s behaviour.

DRM phoned the worker the next day, Monday, April 28th and asked her if she wanted to move to another store.  The worker said that she’d consider that option.  When he called to her store on Friday, May 2nd, the worker told DRM that she didn’t want to move.  DRM had a meeting that day with DP, who denied that he had behaved in the way described by the worker.  DRM made him aware of the company’s expectations regarding acceptable conduct with colleagues and he also spoke with the worker and told her about his conversation with AM and the feedback he had given him.

At the hearing, the worker said that she felt that there was no clear outcome from her complaint about DP and that weeks passed and nothing happened.  She disputes the employer’s position that she appeared to be satisfied with the outcome of the district manager’s meeting with DP on May 2nd.

On May 12th, DRM was on holidays and the worker wrote to the HR business partner (HRBP) and informed her that, in conversation that day with DP about a work issue, he told her to “shut up.”  She said that this made her feel embarrassed and uncomfortable in front of her colleagues and she asked the HRBP to look into the matter and follow up.  The next day, the HRBP phoned the worker and explained that DRM was on holidays until Monday, May 19th and that she would speak to him when he was back.    

The employer’s submission notes that the HRBP contacted DRM on Friday, May 23rd to make him aware of the worker’s additional concerns about DP.  The worker was then on holidays from May 23rd until Tuesday, June 3rd.  DRM called to the Meath store when she returned from holidays, but she had left for the day.  In June 2025, DRM was involved in the fitting out of a new store and in the recruitment of managers. 

The worker felt that nothing had been done since her phone call with the HRBP on May 13th and, on June 19th, she wrote again to say that she continued to be concerned about the conduct of DP.  She said that the delay dealing with the matter made it difficult for her remain at work and, that day, she left work two hours early because she said that her mental health was suffering.  She said that she felt that a direct conversation with DP was essential to properly resolving the problem.

The next day, DRM had a meeting with the worker and DP in the Meath store.  DP again refuted the worker’s allegations.  In her complaint form, the worker claims that she overheard DRM referring to her as “a difficult person.”  The employer’s position is that DRM remarked to DP that, as a manager, you will always come across difficult staff and everyone is different and has different needs and the important thing is how you handle things.

DRM followed up his meetings on Friday, June 20th with an email to the HRBP on the same day.  He summarised the worker’s concerns, which he had outlined to DP.  He also summarised DP’s response, and his instructions to him to communicate clearly and inclusively with the team and to avoid singling out any individual for different treatment.  In his email, DRM told the HRBP that he intended returning to the store the following Thursday, June 26th, to review the situation with DP. 

On June 24th, the worker sent DRM an email to summarise the points she raised in their meeting.  She explained that, on Thursday, June 19th, DP was irritated with her and the build-up of the previous weeks was getting to her and she went home early.   The worker told DRM that she was concerned about DP’s instruction to her to restrict herself to working on one side of the shop, while he worked on the other side.  She said that she was expected to be aware of everything that happens in the store, including things that she wasn’t informed about.  She concluded her email to DRM saying that she wanted a formal investigation into the conduct of DP.  DRM replied and said that he had passed her email to HR.

On June 26th, DRM had a follow-up meeting with DP and informed him that he would be moved to a different store when a manager was identified for the Meath store.  He was then out sick until July 13th.  DRM also told the worker that DP would be transferred to a different store.  The investigation report submitted to me by the head of HR after the hearing notes that on July 10th, DRM visited the Meath store and spoke with the worker who enquired if DP was coming back.  He said that he asked the worker if she wanted to continue with her formal complaint and that she replied that would wait to see if DP returned to her store.  The worker disputes this.  Her position is that she told DRM that it didn’t matter who was the manager of the store, and that she still wanted a formal investigation carried out.

On July 13th, because there was no suitable vacancy in the district for a deputy manager, DP returned to the Meath store.  The roster submitted to me after the hearing shows that the worker wasn’t rostered on July 13th and 14th and DP wasn’t rostered on July 15th.  On July 15th, the worker wrote to the HRBP and said that no one had contacted her directly and that she received no updates.  She said that the lack of communication had caused her to feel extremely stressed and overwhelmed.  In her submission, the worker said that the response to her request for a formal investigation on June 24th was inadequate, and that the matter continued to be treated as informal, resulting in delay, lack of clarity and differing accounts of her position.  Also on July 15th, the worker submitted her grievance to the WRC.  The following day, she submitted a medical certificate stating she was unfit for work due to work-related stress.  She said that she would be out sick until July 29th. 

The worker was unable to return to work on July 29th and, on August 1st, she had a telephone call with the HRBP to discuss what support she needed to enable her to return.

On July 31st, DP resigned from the company and he left two weeks later.

On August 7th, the worker attended a meeting over Microsoft Teams with the HRBP and the head of HR to discuss how to make progress with her formal complaint.  During that meeting, she complained about what she considered to be inaction on the part of the HRBP and DRM.  Because of these complaints, the head of HR took on the responsibility for the investigation.  On August 11th, terms of reference for the investigation were issued to the worker and, on August 12th, she submitted a formal statement.

On August 15th, the head of HR wrote to DP to inform him that a complaint had been submitted about him.  She told him that she would contact him again when she met the worker to discuss the details of her complaint.  August 15th was DP’s last day at work and, although he replied on August 18th to say that he wished to be involved in the investigation, he did not reply to any further correspondence asking him to participate.

On August 22nd, an appointment was arranged with the employer’s occupational health consultant to ensure that the worker was fit to engage in the investigation into her grievance.  She didn’t attend the appointment, but resigned the same day.  In her email to the head of HR, she said that her decision was “the result of the harassment and hostile work environment” she had experienced and “the company’s lack of action to address these issues.”

On the day she resigned, the head of HR wrote to the worker and asked her to re-consider her decision and to engage in the investigation into her grievance.  She asked her to wait until Monday, August 25th, to confirm if she wanted to resign.  On Saturday, August 24th, the worker wrote to the head of HR and said that she was going ahead with her decision to resign.  The head of HR replied the next day and told the worker that the behaviour she complained about is not tolerated and that an investigation would be carried out.  She asked the worker to engage in the investigation, and she said that her statement of August 12th would be sent to DP for his response.

On August 26th, the worker wrote to the head of HR and said that she would not engage with the company in relation to her grievance and that she would pursue the matter directly with the WRC. 

On December 5th 2025, the head of HR produced a final report into the worker’s grievance.  DP had denied the claims made against him and the head of HR was unable to uphold or substantiate the worker’s claims due to lack of evidence and witness statements.  In her findings, the head of HR noted that, in the context of an informal investigation, the taking of detailed notes is not required; however, given the deteriorating working relationship between the worker and DP, better notes should have been kept by DRM about the discussions that took place.

A copy of the report was sent to the worker after the hearing at the WRC on January 15th 2026.  The worker wrote to me afterwards and said that, contrary what is stated in the report, she was not issued with a copy and therefore, she had no opportunity to appeal against the findings.

In the documents she submitted for the hearing, the worker included a copy of her formal grievance which she sent to the HR department on August 12th 2025.  She claimed that,

On April 15th, when she expressed her views about an issue at work, she said that DP made the remark, “I should know better than to ask a woman her opinion.”  She said that she experienced this as sexist and discriminatory and that it undermined her professional standing and contributed to a sexist and hostile work environment.

On April 24th, when they were speaking with a colleague, she said that DP deliberately blew on the back of her neck.  She said that she experienced this as an unwanted and inappropriate act of a sexual nature which made her feel uncomfortable, violated her personal boundaries and made her feel unsafe in the workplace.

On May 12th, she said that DP told her to “shut up,” in a manner she perceived as aggressive, intimidating and dismissive.

She said that, on June 19th, she contacted the district manager and HR for the third time and on June 20th, the district manager visited her in the store.  She said that no solutions or meaningful support came from the conversation.  On June 24th, she said that she submitted a formal complaint, which was passed to HR.  On July 15th, she said that she was “forced to exit the business for the third time” because she hadn’t received support or contact from HR. 

Listing what she considered to be procedural failures, the worker said that her employer didn’t clearly progress her complaint under the formal grievance procedure when they were requested to do so.  She said that she wasn’t updated with regard to the progress of her grievance which left her working in an environment she had identified as unsafe.  She said that the ongoing lack of a resolution had a significant impact on her health and that she went on sick leave for work-related stress.  She claims that the handling of her complaint resulted in a breakdown of trust and confidence which, in the end, resulted in her resignation.

At the hearing of this matter on January 15th 2026, the worker, who was unrepresented and unaccompanied, spoke from a note she prepared for the hearing.  She submitted a copy of this note to me after the hearing.

In her note, the worker said that her complaint “concerns the handling of my workplace complaint, rather than a determination of the underlying allegations themselves.”

After she sent the email to the district manager on April 27th 2025, the worker said that she followed up repeatedly, asking for meetings, updates and clarity, because she wanted the matter resolved.  She said that weeks passed without any clear information regarding the process being followed, the specific steps being taken, or what protections were in place while the matter remained unresolved.  She said that she was never informed about the outcome of the informal process and that this contributed to a breakdown in trust in her employer. 

The worker said that it was assumed that she was satisfied with how the district manager handled her complaints about DP, but she said that she never confirmed in writing that she was satisfied or that the matter was resolved.  She said that her emails show her continued efforts to seek a resolution.  She said that she wanted it noted that, on August 10th 2025, she asked for the outcome from the informal investigation into her grievance, but that this wasn’t provided.  She said that this contributed to a complete breakdown of trust and confidence.

On June 24th 2025, the worker said that she explicitly asked for her complaint to be progressed as a formal investigation, but that no formal process was initiated at that time and the matter continued to be dealt with informally.  It wasn’t until August 7th that she had a meeting with the head of HR to discuss how to make progress with the formal investigation.  She said that, during this period, no interim measures were put in place and she was expected to work in the same environment that she had identified as unsafe.  She said that the employer has acknowledged the procedural delays and that these delays are central to her complaint.  When the situation remained unresolved, she said that the impact on her health worsened and she had to leave work on several occasions due to distress.  On July 15th 2025, she went on certified sick leave for work-related stress.

The worker acknowledged that efforts were made to engage with her during her sick leave, but she said that this occurred after months of uncertainty and delay.  In the end, she said that she resigned because she lost confidence that her concerns would be handled in a way that protected her well being.

The worker asked me to issue a recommendation acknowledging that her complaint was not handled in accordance with fair procedures or good industrial relations, and to recommend appropriate compensation.

The timeline set out in the “Background” section above was compiled with the assistance of the employer’s written submission.

At the hearing, the head of HR acknowledged that there were delays dealing with the worker’s grievance, and that this was a cause of frustration for her.  The HR manager also accepted that there was limited documentation compiled as part of the informal investigation, and a “strong paper trail” from the district manager to the worker and DP would have been beneficial and would also have demonstrated that the employer was taking the worker’s complaint seriously.

At the hearing, the district manager said that, in his discussions with DP in May 2025, DP denied the allegations about him that were made by the worker.   At the end of June 2025, the district manager felt that the informal approach had not been successful and the intention of the company was to move DP to a different store.  While they were looking for a suitable appointment, on July 15th, the worker went absent due to stress.  DP resigned on July 31st.

At the end of the worker’s period of sick leave, the HR managers attempted to move forward with a formal investigation, but the worker refused to sign the terms of reference and complained about how her complaints were dealt with by the HRBP and DRM. 

The head of HR said that the company’s position is that it acted reasonably and in accordance with their dignity at work policy and they engaged with the worker throughout the informal and formal processes, for as long as the worker was interested in engaging.  She said that the company accepts that there were delays reaching a conclusion, and that sick leave, holidays and operational issues intervened.  The head of HR agreed that the informal process was long and she apologised to the worker for the stress that this caused.

Although the worker and DP had left the company in August 2024, the head of HR said that she proceeded with an investigation, based on the information available. 

Concluding her submission, the head of HR said that the company is committed to good industrial relations and will consider any recommendation of the WRC concerning how this matter was handled.

From the worker’s statement at the hearing, I understand that her grievance concerns how her complaint about the conduct of DP was handled, rather than an investigation into the conduct itself.  Her complaint is about what she perceives as a delayed response, and particularly, a delay dealing with her formal complaint which she sent to her employer in writing on June 24th 2025.

Review of the Worker’s Grievance

The worker’s decision not to speak freely at the hearing, but to use a written note, is at odds with how she articulated her grievances in her emails to DRM and the HRBP during her employment.  I understand that it can be challenging for someone to present their case at the WRC, and it is regrettable that the worker attended alone and that she felt that she had to rely on a prepared statement.  This approach left me without a sense of the lived experience of her final weeks in her job and the impact on her of the delays she complained about.

I have carefully reviewed the worker’s emails, and I have considered what she said at the hearing, and particularly, her request for a formal investigation.  She believes that her employer failed to respond to her request in a timely manner, and that this resulted in her remaining in what she described as an unsafe environment.  While the worker has asked me to focus on the employer’s response to her grievance, she made a serious claim that her workplace was unsafe, and any recommendation I reach would be deficient if I didn’t address this allegation. 

When the worker sent her email to DRM on April 27th 2025, she said that she wanted to “informally raise some concerns regarding the ongoing behaviour of my manager…”  She said, “Over time, there have been several incidents where I have felt disrespected, uncomfortable, and at times pressurised into doing things that made me uneasy.” 

On April 27th, DP had been working in the store in Meath for less than a month.  I note from the rosters that the seven-day opening schedule meant that the worker and DP were rostered together for 10 or 12 days each month.  Therefore, by April 27th, the worker and DP had worked together for 10 or 12 days.  Her reference in her email to “the ongoing behaviour of my manager” and incidents that occurred “over time,” gives the impression that they had been working together for longer and is, in my view, intended to add unjustifiable impact to her complaint.

The worker’s most egregious complaint concerns her claim that, on April 24th 2025, while she was speaking with a colleague, DP stood behind her and blew on her neck.  With three people at speaking distance from each other, it is difficult to visualise how, if one person blew on the neck of one of the others, that it wouldn’t be perceived as offensive.  As she was in the company of a male colleague, it is regrettable that the worker didn’t respond immediately and confront DM about blowing on her neck.  She had previously told him not to call her “darling” and she also confronted him about what she considered to be his aggressive tone.  If DP blew on her neck, I find it difficult to understand why she didn’t address this conduct on the spot in a forthright manner.

It is apparent that, when he read her email of Sunday, April 27th, the district manager took the worker’s allegations seriously, because he phoned her the following day and asked her if she wanted to move to a different store.  He then called to the store on Friday, May 2nd and spoke with DP, who denied this allegation and the claim that he referred to the worker as “darling” and that his tone with her was aggressive and confrontational.

DRM reported back to the worker that DP had denied the allegations she made about him.  He said that he spoke to DP about the importance of treating staff respectfully.  Even on hearing his denial, the worker didn’t refer to the fact that her colleague was present when she claims DP blew on her neck. 

Delays Dealing with the Worker’s Complaint

The crux of the worker’s complaint is that the management didn’t deal with her complaints in a timely manner, and that this contributed to her sense that her working environment was unsafe.  I have reviewed the email correspondence between the worker and DRM and the HRBP, and the timeline provided to me in the employer’s submission.  The following is a summary of the communications between the parties:

On Sunday, April 27th, the worker sent her first email to DRM, in which she complained about the conduct of DP.

The next day, Monday, April 28th, DRM phoned the worker.  She was offered the option of moving to another store, which she said she would consider.

Four days later, on Friday, May 2nd, DRM called to the Meath store and spoke to DP about his behaviour and told the worker that he had spoken to him.

DRM was on holidays on Monday, May 12th, when the worker wrote to the HRBP to inform her that DP had told her to “shut up.”  Since May 2nd, she and DP had been rostered together for two days, May 9th and 12th.

The HRBP phoned the worker the next day, Tuesday, May 13th and explained that DRM was on holidays until the following Monday.  She wrote to the worker on Wednesday, May 14th and confirmed this and asked her not to engage with DP “until we contact you next week.”

On Friday, May 23rd, DRM had been back from holidays for one week and the HRBP phoned him to let him know about the worker’s email of May 12th.  The worker was on holidays at this point, returning on June 3rd.  In the 10 days from May 13th until the 23rd, the worker and DP were rostered together on four days.

On Tuesday, June 3rd, the worker was rostered on, but when DRM called to her store, she had left.  DP wasn’t rostered on that day.

Between June 3rd and the 19th, when the worker wrote again to the HRBP, she and DP had been rostered together on eight days.  She said that a direct conversation was essential to resolving matters between her and DP.  She said that she was clocking out early for the second time.  DRM was involved in a store re-fit and the worker said that, while she understood the wider demands of the business, the delays were making it difficult for her to continue in the current situation.

DRM called to meet the worker and DP in her store the next day, June 20th.  On the form she submitted to the WRC, she said that DRM sat down with her and DP and that he told her afterwards that DP’s conduct would be investigated and dealt with. 

The gap between June 3rd, when DRM called to the store to meet the worker, and June 20th, when he returned to her store is 17 days.

On June 24th, the worker submitted a formal grievance concerning DP’s “behaviour from when he started” in her store.  Between June 19th and 24th, she and DP were rostered together on one day.

In total, in the two months between April 27th and June 24th, when she submitted this formal complaint, DP and the worker had been rostered together on 16 days.  Although the roster for the month of March was not provided to me, I assume that the worker and DP were rostered together in March for 10 or 12 days.  Therefore, since DP was assigned to the store in Meath in March, he and the worker were rostered together for 28 days at most.

On June 26th, DRM informed DP that he would be moved to another store when a suitable position was identified.  He gave the worker the same information.  Although DP returned to the Meath store on May 13th, he and the worker didn’t work together again.

On July 10th, DRM was in the Meath store and he spoke with the worker.  His recollection is that she said that her decision to proceed with her formal complaint depended on whether DP was returning to her store.  The worker’s position is that she told DRM that it didn’t matter who the manager was, and that she wanted a formal investigation into her complaint.

Although DP returned to work on Sunday, July 13th, the worker wasn’t rostered on that day or the next day.  DP was rostered off on Tuesday, July 15th, and, on that day, the worker submitted this dispute to the WRC.  She was absent due to work-related stress from July 16th until her resignation on August 22nd.

Findings

Considering the issue of the delay dealing with her informal complaint in the first instance, it is my view that DRP dealt with the worker’s complaint in a reasonable and proactive manner by calling to the store on May 2nd to speak with her and DP and by instructing DP regarding how he should communicate with staff.

On June 19th, the worker wrote to the HRBP and complained about the fact that there hadn’t been “a sit-down meeting” to address her concerns.  DRM called to the store the next day, June 20th, and, according to the worker, he sat down with her and DP.  She said that he told her that DP’s conduct would be dealt with.

I accept that there was a delay of 17 days between the visit of DRM to the Meath store on June 3rd and his return on June 20th, and that this was caused by operational issues in the business.  From the worker’s perspective, the delay was from May 12th, when she wrote to the HRBP, and she felt that nothing had been done, although DRM had called to the store, but she had gone home.

I agree with the head of HR that some more robust recording of the outcome from the worker’s informal complaint would have helped her to feel that she had been listened to and that her concerns were taken seriously. 

The worker submitted a formal complaint on June 24th and, on June 26th, she was informed that DP would be moved from the Meath store.  Although no explanation was provided for DP’s move, it is my view that most reasonable people in the same circumstances as the worker would have taken comfort from this decision and may have decided that there was no further cause for a complaint.  Having said that, the worker was entitled to expect a formal outcome to her formal grievance.  Although DRM had the impression that the worker wanted to wait to see if DP returned to her store before she decided if she wanted to progress her formal complaint, it is my view that, before he returned, the head of HR should have had a meeting with her to bring her complaint to a proper conclusion. 

On July 15th, when she submitted this complaint to the WRC, there was still time to conduct a formal investigation into the worker’s grievance. 

Conclusions

The information provided to me by the worker is not sufficient for me to determine that her workplace was unsafe or that her employer failed to address her concerns.  Her complaints of April 27th about the conduct of DP were addressed directly with him by DRM on May 2nd.  DRM had a meeting with the worker and DP on June 20th and the worker was informed that DP’s conduct would be addressed.  On June 26th, following the submission of her formal complaint, she was informed that DP was being transferred from her store.

Considering the worker’s complaint about the delay dealing with her informal complaint, I agree with her that the delay was too long, from May 12th, when she sent an email to the HRBP, until June 20th, when DRM had a meeting in the store with her and DP.  I note however, that DRM called to the store to meet her when she was back from holidays on June 3rd, but she had gone home.

It is the worker’s contention that no attention was paid to her formal grievance dated June 24th, until she was out sick, when she felt it was too late.  She was absent due to work-related stress from July 16th and she resigned on August 22nd.  It is my view that it was reasonable for DRM and the HR department to expect that the worker’s complaint might be resolved with the departure of DP from her store.  However, it was incumbent on them to ensure that this was the case, and to ask the worker to confirm her position in writing.  In the absence of confirmation from the worker that she wanted to put her complaint on hold, it is my view that matters should have been progressed in accordance with the company’s Dignity at Work policy.

In the end, although the investigation did take place, the worker did not participate, which is regrettable.  It is my view that, rather than a hearing at the WRC, which she attended alone, a more constructive outcome could have emerged from her engaging with her former employer, with the support of a colleague or a family member. 

At the end of this hearing, the head of HR acknowledged the lack of written confirmation of the progress of the informal investigation into the worker’s complaint and she apologised to her for the effect of the delay dealing with her grievance.  The head of HR said that the company was open to offering compensation for these failings. 

Considering all the information provided to me at the hearing, and the employer’s willingness to compensate the worker, I recommend that this matter is brought to a conclusion with the payment by the employer to the worker of compensation of €1,000.

Grievance, delay progressing an investigation, dignity at work, bullying and harassment