Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Catering Supervisor

Catering Services Provider

Representatives

Self-Represented

Elaine Hill NFP HR Solutions

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 - 00005035

27/08/2025

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Worker was employed as a Catering Supervisor from July 2023 until her resignation in July 2025.

The Worker contends that she was subjected to ongoing inappropriate behaviour by a colleague, culminating in an alleged physical assault in June 2025. She submits that her complaints were not properly addressed by management and that she was left in an unsafe working environment, leading to her resignation.

The Employer rejects these claims and asserts that it acted reasonably, that the Worker did not exhaust internal procedures prior to resigning. The Employer submits that a subsequent investigation into the complaint was conducted in accordance with company policy, with an inconclusive outcome.

The Worker stated that from late 2024 onwards, she experienced persistent difficulties with a colleague who refused to follow instructions. She alleged he behaved aggressively and undermined her authority as a supervisor. She submits that she raised these matters with her line manager on more than one occasion but that no effective action was taken.

The Worker reported that her manager encouraged her to resolve matters informally and did not advise or support her in invoking the Employer’s formal bullying and harassment procedures but instead discouraged her from taking a complaint because he told her he was new on the job and did not want to deal with a problem like this. She maintains that this approach allowed the situation to deteriorate over several months.

The Worker further stated that on 26 June 2025, the colleague grabbed her by the arm and forcibly pulled her into another area while shouting at her. She reported the matter the following day and completed an incident report. She submits that, notwithstanding the seriousness of this allegation, no immediate protective steps were taken.

The Worker stated that she informed management that she could no longer work with the colleague and subsequently resigned, giving four weeks’ notice. During this period, she was required to continue working alongside the colleague and described feeling fearful and intimidated. The Worker submits that the Employer failed in its duty to provide a safe working environment.

While a formal investigation was later conducted, the Worker expressed dissatisfaction with both the timing and the outcome, which she states did not adequately address her complaint.

The Employer submits that it first became aware of a serious complaint on 27 June 2025, when the Worker reported the alleged incident. It states that the Worker indicated at that time that she could no longer continue in employment and was effectively resigning.

The Employer contends that it advised the Worker of the grievance procedures available to her and encouraged her to reconsider her resignation. It maintains that the Worker was aware of the relevant policies and had received training in this regard.

The Employer further submits that a prior issue between the Worker and the colleague had been addressed informally in April 2025, with both parties agreeing to move forward amicably.

Following the Worker’s resignation, the Employer initiated a formal grievance investigation. Statements were taken from the Worker, the colleague, and other staff members. As there were no witnesses to the alleged incident and conflicting accounts were given, the investigation concluded that the allegations were inconclusive.

The Employer maintains that it acted reasonably, followed its procedures, and afforded the Worker an opportunity to pursue her complaint, which she did not fully exhaust prior to resigning.

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

This case turns not on whether the alleged assault occurred, but on whether the Employer acted reasonably in response to the complaints made by the Worker, including the alleged assault and prior alleged unacceptable behaviour.

1. Handling of Initial Complaints

I am satisfied that the Worker raised concerns with her line manager over a period of time prior to the incident of June 2025. The manager in question did not attend the hearing. I accept her account that these concerns were not dealt with adequately and that she was encouraged 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 line manager not only failed in his duty to do so but instead actively discouraged her, and hindered her, from invoking the formal bullying and harassment procedures. This represents a significant procedural failing.

2. Response to the Alleged Assault

The most serious aspect of this case concerns the alleged incident of 26 June 2025. The Worker made a complaint of physical assault, which, if substantiated, would constitute gross misconduct.

In such circumstances, any reasonable employer would be expected to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the complainant and preserve the integrity of any investigation. This would ordinarily involve, at a minimum, separating the parties and, where appropriate, suspending the alleged perpetrator pending investigation. In this case, no such steps were taken. Instead, the Worker was required to continue working alongside the individual concerned for a period of approximately four weeks. I find this to be inappropriate given the seriousness of the allegation. The Employer’s failure to take immediate protective action represents a fundamental flaw in its handling of the matter. It exposed the Worker to continued distress and undermined her confidence in the Employer’s processes.

3. Investigation Process

While the Employer did ultimately conduct an investigation, this occurred after the Worker had resigned and cannot remedy the earlier failings. Significantly this was addressed as a grievance by the Employer as distinct from an investigation of gross misconduct by the alleged perpetrator. The Employer confirmed that the alleged perpetrator was subsequently promoted because the outcome of the “grievance” procedure was inconclusive. The fact that the investigation reached an inconclusive outcome does not, in itself, address the deficiencies in how the matter was downgraded and managed unreasonably at the time it arose.

4. Overall Assessment

Taking all of the above into account, I find the Worker’s complaints were not adequately addressed at an early stage. She was discouraged from utilising formal procedures; and the Employer failed to respond appropriately to a serious allegation of assault. These failures amount to a significant departure from the standard of a reasonable employer and contributed directly to the Worker’s decision to resign.

Section 13 of Industrial Relations Act 1969.