Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

Representatives

 N/A

GHR Consulting

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 - 00004765

21/07/2025

The Worker has been employed as a courier driver with the Employer since 18 September 2021. He asserted that throughout his employment he carried out his duties conscientiously, developed positive working relationships with customers, and had no prior disciplinary record. He stated that the employment relationship had deteriorated significantly during the final 12 months of his employment, ultimately culminating in disciplinary action which he considered to have been unfair, excessive, and damaging to his health and wellbeing.

Alleged Bullying and Deterioration of the Working Relationship

The Worker alleged that over a prolonged period he had been subjected to demeaning, insulting, and inappropriate comments by the Managing Director. He referred to remarks which he stated had undermined his dignity and self‑worth, including being described as “useless”, “a good for nothing”, and being told that he would “be on the dole”. He stated that such remarks were made repeatedly and created a hostile working environment.

The Worker stated that this conduct had caused him increasing distress and anxiety over time and had led to symptoms of depression. He maintained that, despite attempting to perform his duties to the best of his ability, the manner in which he had been spoken to left him feeling emotionally exhausted and worthless. He was subsequently certified unfit for work by his doctor and commenced medication for depression and sleep disturbance.

The Worker outlined events arising in early February 2025 when he attended work while experiencing back pain. He acknowledged that he had reported for work while unwell but stated that he had acted in good faith, sought medical advice promptly, attended hospital as advised, and kept the employer informed throughout. He asserted that he had complied with medical certification and cooperated with the employer regarding his fitness to work.

He further stated that conditions imposed by the employer in relation to his return to work, including provisions limiting responsibility for any aggravation of his condition, had been unreasonable and caused him distress.

Incident of 5 June 2025 and subsequent disciplinary process

The central disciplinary matter arose from an incident on 5 June 2025. The Worker was accused by the Managing Director of speeding on the M3 motorway and of behaving in a threatening manner towards him at a customer’s premises. As a result of these allegations, the Worker was suspended with pay from 9 June 2025.

The Worker strongly denied both allegations. He stated that he had not been speeding, that he had a clean driving record, and that he had never threatened anyone during his employment or otherwise.

He asserted that the suspension letter had characterised the allegations as very serious and framed them as potential gross misconduct. He further stated that the suspension itself was unjustified and disproportionate in the circumstances.

A disciplinary meeting took place on 16 June 2025. The Worker attended the meeting accompanied by his wife. While he had been advised to bring a colleague, he stated that it had not been made clear that this was mandatory and that he had required personal support due to the stress he had been experiencing.

At the meeting, the Worker denied all allegations and provided his account of the events of 5 June 2025. Following the meeting, the Managing Director issued the Worker with a final written warning.

The Worker asserted that this sanction had been excessive and unfair, particularly as he had never previously received any verbal or written warnings. The warning cited alleged aggressive conduct, an inability to manage anger, concerns regarding care of company vehicles, and a number of historical performance and conduct issues. The Worker stated that many of these matters had either been exaggerated, misrepresented, or had never previously been raised formally with him.

He further stated that the warning imposed extremely onerous conditions, including the risk of instant dismissal for any future complaint or traffic infringement.

The Worker lodged an appeal against the final written warning, and an external HR consultant was appointed to hear the appeal. However, the appeal has still not been heard.

The Employer rejected the allegation of bullying and stated that all actions taken were reasonable, proportionate, and necessary to address health, safety, and performance concerns. During the Worker’s employment, he was managed by the Managing Director, who consistently adopted a calm, neighbourly, and respectful management approach. Where performance concerns arose, these were generally addressed informally through discussion, understanding, and agreement, an approach applied consistently across all workers. In the Worker’s case, however, the Employer stated that ongoing performance issues emerged over time, including carelessness, reluctance to accept guidance, and resistance to change. These issues, when viewed collectively, resulted in incidents that caused financial loss, operational disruption, and reputational damage to the business.

On 16 December 2022, the Worker was involved in a serious road traffic accident in County Meath. Prior to setting out, the Worker had been warned by the Managing Director to exercise caution due to forecast frost and to use main roads. Despite this advice, the Worker travelled on a minor road, lost control of his vehicle, and collided with an oncoming car, causing extensive damage and injuries to the vehicle’s occupants. The matter remains unresolved, with repair costs of approximately €13,700 already incurred and personal injury compensation claims estimated at over €50,000 pending. The Employer stated that this incident caused significant stress, increased insurance costs, and reputational harm to the business and its family-operated management.

Further incidents followed. In 2023, the Worker damaged a parked BMW while transferring goods from his van to a customer’s premises, resulting in compensation costs. On 24 May 2025, the Worker reported an incident involving a collision with a deer, causing damage to the Employer’s vehicle.

On 4 February 2025, the Worker reported for duty at approximately 4:45 a.m., collected his van, and completed his workday. Later that day, he informed the Employer that he had been suffering severe back pain throughout the preceding weekend and had attended his GP, who advised him to present at Accident and Emergency. He subsequently received medical certification deeming him unfit for work from 5–7 February, with clearance to return on 10 February. The Employer stated that reporting for courier duties while suffering severe back pain was unacceptable and posed health and safety risks. Despite this, the Worker insisted on returning on 10 February 2025, although no diagnostic results had yet been received. With the Worker’s consent, the Employer contacted his GP, who advised that further occupational health assessment was required. To facilitate the Worker’s return, the Employer prepared a written fitness-for-work agreement outlining specific conditions, which the Worker signed on 25 February 2025.

On 14 February 2025, the Worker’s van had to be recovered from a motorway after being driven without AdBlue, resulting in recovery and maintenance costs. The Employer stated this arose because the Worker failed to complete daily vehicle fluid checks.

A formal performance review meeting took place on 19 February 2025, attended by the Worker and his wife, although he had been advised to consider bringing a work colleague. Issues discussed included the Worker’s refusal on occasion to carry additional consignments despite having capacity, unannounced and inappropriate visits to the Employer’s family home and depot at early hours, unauthorised arrangements for cover with colleagues, unauthorised purchasing from suppliers, and ongoing dissatisfaction with safety measures following sickness absence. The Employer stated that these matters were raised calmly and constructively.

On 5 June 2025, the Worker was observed by the Managing Director driving at excessive speed on the motorway, overtaking traffic aggressively. When challenged about this behaviour, the Worker reacted in an aggressive and threatening manner. The Employer states that this incident caused the Managing Director considerable fear, stress, and anxiety, particularly in light of the Worker’s previous serious accident and the ongoing personal injury claims. The Worker denied both the speeding and the threatening behaviour and refused to accept responsibility.

After careful consideration, and despite the seriousness of the incident, the Employer decided not to dismiss the Worker. Instead, a final written warning was issued, setting out clear expectations for improvement and warning of dismissal only if behaviour did not change. The Worker was also advised of his right to appeal.

The Worker appealed the warning on 25 June 2025, and independent HR consultants were engaged. On 29 June 2025, the Worker went on sick leave and has since continued to submit medical certificates on a monthly basis. During this period, the Worker has been observed engaging in alternative paid driving activities.

The Employer stated that throughout this period they have acted fairly, proportionately, and with concern for the Worker’s welfare.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I note that two distinct issues arise for consideration in this case:

1. Whether the Worker was subjected to bullying in the course of his employment; and
2. Whether the final written warning issued to the Worker was handled in a procedurally fair manner, particularly in relation to the appeal process.

(1) Allegation of Bullying

The Worker alleged that he was subjected to bullying by the Employer, which he stated included verbal abuse, unfair accusations, and conduct that ultimately contributed to a deterioration in his mental health.

I note, however, that the Worker did not invoke or exhaust the Employer’s internal grievance procedure in respect of the bullying allegation. It is well‑established practice of the Workplace Relations Commission that internal procedures must, insofar as is reasonably practicable, be exhausted before the Commission will examine a complaint of bullying or workplace misconduct.

The rationale for this approach is that employers must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to investigate and, where appropriate, address such allegations internally in the first instance. The grievance procedure is the recognised mechanism through which complaints of bullying should ordinarily be raised, investigated, and responded to at workplace level.

In the absence of the grievance procedure having been invoked by the Worker, I do not consider it appropriate for the WRC to examine the substance of the bullying allegation at this stage.

(2) Final Written Warning and Appeal Process

The second issue concerns the final written warning issued to the Worker and, in particular, the handling of the appeal of that sanction.

It is noted that the Worker exercised his right of appeal against the final written warning and that an external HR consultant was engaged by the Employer for this purpose. However, shortly thereafter, the Worker went on certified sick leave and the appeal was not progressed.

While I accept that the Worker’s illness may have complicated the appeal process, it is nonetheless a fundamental principle of fair procedures that an appeal, once lodged, should be progressed without undue delay. The right of appeal is an essential safeguard in disciplinary processes, particularly where a final written warning has been imposed.

I am of the view that the Employer should have taken proactive steps to progress the appeal process notwithstanding the Worker’s absence from work. This should have included seeking medical clarification as to whether the Worker was fit to engage with the appeal process, even if he remained unfit to return to work. Fitness to participate in an appeal is a distinct consideration from fitness to perform operational duties

Accordingly, I recommend as follows:

• In relation to the bullying allegation, the Worker should, if he wishes to pursue this matter, invoke the Employer’s grievance procedure so that the complaint may be examined internally in accordance with established procedures.
• In relation to the final written warning, the Employer should now take steps to progress the appeal without further delay. This should include seeking confirmation, if necessary from the Worker’s medical adviser, as to whether he is fit to engage with the appeal process, even if he remains unfit for work.