Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Charity

Representatives

Self

Kelvin Hyland of Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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 - 00004893

05/08/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 1st August 2008 as a driver and remains in employment. He has brought this dispute because he says that he is being bullied in the workplace.

The Worker has been a driver with the Employer for over 12 years and submitted many testimonials from clients of the service praising his approach.

He says that his direct manager is bullying him by assigning him older buses which do not have the equipment needed to carry out his role effectively and consistently ringing him after hours to get him to work late. He said that he had caring commitments but that his manager had no regard for this and would call him everyday to work late. He had previously raised this and a meeting was held which appeared to improve things for a short time, but they soon deteriorated again rapidly. Shorter hours had been agreed, but on the first day that this was due to take effect instead of finishing at 4pm as agreed he had to work until 7pm.

Letters from the Worker’s GP outline a significant mental health impact attributable to this behaviour resulting in medication and absence from the workplace.

The Worker raised a grievance regarding bullying with the Employer and received a letter to say that a meeting would need to take place in relation to it. However, he understood that this would be a meeting with his manager and felt unable to participate in that. A letter from his GP was sent to the Employer to say that he was not fit to participate at that time.

The Employer’s case is that referral of this dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission is premature as the Worker has not exhausted internal procedures.

The Employer stated that the preference was for the investigation to proceed, once the Worker was certified as medically fit to engage in it.

It was clarified by the Employer that any investigation meeting would not include the Worker’s manager, as the dispute related to his behaviour.

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

The Worker described several instances of what he considered to be bullying behaviour, as set out above. In his complaint form, he included details of the grievance that he had raised internally in relation to this dispute and also stated that he had not been informed of the findings.

The Employer confirmed that the Worker has been employed by the organisation as a driver since August 2008 and acknowledged that he raised a formal grievance on 16th October 2024 while he was absent from work on certified sick leave. The period of sick leave commenced on 23rd May 2024 and continues to the date of the hearing. The Employer stated that this prolonged absence has prevented the organisation from progressing or completing the grievance investigation.

The Employer, in written submissions, outlined the steps taken to engage with the Worker during this period. On 24th September 2024, his direct manager wrote to him to invite him to a wellbeing meeting. Shortly afterwards, on or around 1st October 2024, correspondence was received from the Worker’s GP indicating that the proposed meeting should be postponed for several months due to the Worker’s mental wellbeing and stating that discussions of this nature were causing him significant distress.

The Chairperson of the Employer organisation wrote to the Worker on 27th November 2024 regarding the grievance. In this letter, he advised that an in‑person meeting with the Worker would be necessary to advance the investigation. He acknowledged the Worker’s ill‑health and stated that the Employer could not proceed until the Worker was well enough to participate. The Chairperson also offered to meet informally to discuss how the organisation might support the Worker’s eventual return to the workplace. An informal meeting subsequently took place on 11th November 2024 at a local café and the Worker described this meeting as helpful.

The Employer emphasised that the grievance has not yet reached the findings stage because the investigation remains incomplete. It asserts that the organisation is willing and prepared to continue with the process but needs the Worker’s engagement once he is medically fit to do so.

It is well established that parties are expected to exhaust internal procedures before submitting a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission. It was explained to the Worker at the hearing that the role of an Adjudication Officer is not to investigate a complaint for the very first time.  Before bringing a dispute to the WRC, both sides must be able to show that they genuinely tried to resolve the dispute themselves. The WRC should be the place to go only after all other options have been tried. This means the people involved are expected to fully use their workplace’s own procedures for dealing with disputes or grievances first.

In this case, the workplace’s internal procedures have been started but not yet concluded.

Both parties agreed at the hearing that the investigation process should be allowed to proceed and conclude, on the understanding that the Worker would not have to meet with his direct manager in relation to that process.

The Employer highlighted the need for the Worker to be certified as medically fit to engage in the process and the Worker agreed with this.

This is a case where it may be of benefit to the parties to engage an independent third party to conduct the investigation process, but that is a matter for the parties themselves.

Exhaust internal procedures