Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Bus Driver

A Travel Company

Representatives

Worker appeared in person

John Sherida , A Travel Company

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 - 00005126

08/09/2025

On 8 September 2025, The Worker, a bus driver submitted details of a workplace dispute with his employer. At this time, he submitted that he was being represented by his Trade Union, NRBU, but indicated that he did not wish for correspondence to be issued to the Union.

 I record this detail purely to set the context of what followed and when the hearing eventually occurred on 24 April 2026, the worker presented his own case.

On 14 January ,2026, the worker requested that the documentation relating to the case be forwarded to his Union.

He then secured an objection to a remote hearing taking place and the matter was listed as an in person hearing for 24 April 2026.

On 17 April 2026, I wrote to the Union seeking their co operation in compilation of a submission to help me navigate the dispute.

I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear this case on April 24, 2026, here in Cork.

This Dispute requires the Union to forward a completed submission, please.

I received a set of random documents from the Worker earlier this week which did not satisfy a submission. I have since returned these, unread.

I am keen to understand the background to this Dispute, and I invite completed submissions by return, please.

I am also in the process of seeking reciprocal submissions from the Employer in this case.

I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing.

The Union wrote back and confirmed that the referral to the WRC had occurred in isolation and was not endorsed by the Union. Therefore, they were not advancing the case for the worker.

I received a completed submission from the Employer.

I prepared for hearing.

Prior to hearing, the worker sought to submit audio tapes which he said were recorded in support of his case. I explained that this was an Industrial Relations case and was running on narrative and not evidence.

The Employer operates a Travel Company and has rejected the claims made.

During the course of the hearing, the Worker confirmed that he had lodged a Personal Injuries claim in the Ordinary Courts but was unable to clarify where the IR Dispute had come first in time.

Some days post hearing; the worker forwarded an extract of a Medical Report compiled by his GP practice which he requested I review.

The Worker commenced work as a Bus Driver on 26 August 2021. His work pattern was 39 hrs a week. He came to hearing from the context and background of sick leave and was subsisting on a social welfare payment.

On careful and sensitive inquiry, I established that the worker came to hearing to assist him in paving his return to his position and to help him navigate a way through his perceived obstacles to that objective.

The Worker filed his complaint form based on an incident some 2.5 years into his employment, where he was notified of a what’s app circulation amongst supervisors which was shared with him.

The what’s app criticised him and he was encouraged to report is as “Harassment “.

He went on to state that his health had been affected by the level of isolation and criticised which had been directed towards him and he had sought refuge in sick leave, now expired.

It was unclear from the claim form of what exactly the worker was seeking at the WRC.

During the investigation at hearing, the worker spoke for extended periods when he outlined that he loved his position as a bus driver, but he felt he had been pushed out by the company. He stated that he felt belittled and insulted when his actions were misunderstood and his customers had offered strong testament to his caring and competent nature.

He was still grappling with the disciplinary procedure action by the company against him in March 2023, while he appealed the finding, he still carried hurt regarding how he was cast by the company. His submitted documents revealed a reduction in disciplinary sanction from severe to reprimand dated 28 August 2023.

He contended that the company’s attitude towards him changed after this as he had tried to raise relevant and reasonable concerns on operational matters but had not been heard.

He acknowledged he held a pronounced animus against a colleague Supervisor, who he said caused him trouble in the past.

He confirmed that he had initiated High Court proceedings for personal injuries against the company but was unable to detail their genesis.

It was the workers case that he had sought to action a grievance on May 21, 2021, at 10.43pm when he wrote.

“I would like to take it to the next stages of the process “

He was not invited to enter the next stage and the matter remained unresolved.

The worker contended that he had not been respected in his role and carried significant stress.

When asked how he envisaged a resolution in this Dispute? he volunteered by his return to work. He clarified that he had not been deemed medically fit to resume work, but it remained upper most in his mind.

I asked the worker if he had any medical opinion on his status which may assist in my investigation and eventually, he offered to consider submission of a medical report compiled for his personal injury case, not previously shared with the employer.

I have since received an extract from a medical report which for confidentiality reasons has not been shared with the Employer in this case.

The Worker stated that he was struggling financially and emotionally remaining outside his job.

He was adamant that he had placed the employer on notice of the enormity of his distress, harassment, and bullying, where he had sought help and had been ignored.

The worker exhibited anger, disappointment, and a sense of alienation from his work. He continued to hold the viewpoint that the person who gave him a copy of the what’s app had assisted him.

The Employer outlined that the worker had worked as a Bus Driver from July 2021 across a variety of City Routes prior to his sick leave in April 2024.

The Employer has disputed the claims made.

The Employer came to hearing and recounted that the worker had approached Management in early April 2024. He advised that he felt bullied and harassed by the what’s app message referred to by the worker and sought an investigation.

The matter was investigated and feedback issued to the worker some two days later. The Employer confirmed sight of the what’s app and recounted the steps taken in seeking to resolve the matter.

“… I spoke to every supervisor that works in X Office. I outlined to all the necessity that they carry out their roles in a professional manner. I made it clear that any previous issues or disagreements cannot influence future interaction with any driver. Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace and outside “

The Employer went on to capture the positives in the working relationship.

It was the Employers case that the worker did not respond to this email, and they understood that the matter stood resolved until the issue came before the WRC.

The Worker has been classified as being on extended medically certified sick leave from July 2024 to the present day.

The Employer is disappointed by the sporadic attendance by the worker in the supportive service of Occupational Health. He availed of 3 of the 7 opportunities offered.

The Employer was keen that the WRC was aware that the worker had not visibly triggered a grievance or complaint arising from the what’s app. The Company is not in possession of a formal complaint from the worker.

The Employer outlined that the WRC had no role in an incomplete grievance process which remained available to the worker in his workplace.

The Employer confirmed they remained open to a mutual resolution of the issues but expressed a strong view that they had not wronged the worker and disputed the claims made.

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

In conducting this investigation, I was struck firstly by the solitary and insular aura surrounding the worker in the case. He had introduced himself to the WRC in September 2025 as a Union member and for whom the Union would speak. By presenting his case alone, I found that the worker did not permit himself time and space to hear where the employer may be coming from. He was steadfast that the employer had wronged him and had got utterly lost in that viewpoint. I found it difficult to get him to identify potential building blocks to resolve the dispute.

It has been disappointing that I have not met the Union in this case as I would have welcomed an objective viewpoint or even an aerial view of just what occurred in the workplace and how it might be fixed. I found that the worker, while carrying an elevated level of disappointment regarding his employment had some difficulty in recollecting a clear sequence of what happened, when it happened and how it might be fixed.

I also found a chasm in the employers account of events as the clear and pronounced attempt to resolve the matter through local grievance during May 2024 was not capitalised on until late in the hearing when the Employer emphasised that the Company procedures remained open but unutilised by the worker. He had leap frogged to the WRC forsaking Stage C of the Company Grievance procedure in favour of an express route to Stage D, third party.

I address the parties directly when I say , my sole role in this case is to investigate this dispute and explore , with the parties help if I can find merit in the dispute and most important , can I identify a construction which might encourage the parties to try in mending a broken employment relationship?

A claim under the Industrial Relations Act cannot be used as a dress rehearsal for a claim for Personal Injuries. The Act allows for recommendation to rebuild, restore and resolve. It is powerful in that objective and has saved a lot of broken employment relationships.

In this case, I will summarise what I have heard and reviewed.

1 The Worker loved his position and currently stands outside that job, on extended sick leave, looking in.

2 The Employer has endeavoured to offer Occupational Health support to the worker, not fully accepted. This stands in sharp contrast to the myriads of attendances to his own GP practice.

3 The Worker contends that he wishes to resume work but has not acquired an up to date “fit for work “certificate. This is in complete contrast to the narrative of the incomplete medical report offered to me post hearing.

4 The Worker has clearly not recovered from his exposure to Disciplinary action of 2023. albeit that it was reduced down a level on appeal.

5 I can accept that the Worker sought to record his disappointment on sight of the Supervisors what’s app in May 2024. I can also accept that the Company invested in significant conflict resolution techniques, up to and including an offer of Mediation.

6 I note that the Worker engaged in covert recording of this grievance meeting, which the company was prepared to overlook.

7 I note that the workers chosen representative stood back from this process and was not replaced.

8 I can accept that the Worker replied to the Company seeking to “take it to the next stage of the process “by 21 May 2024. However, he did not specify that he wished to trigger Stage C of the grievance procedure and crucially, he did not set out or specify what for him remained unresolved. I find that he must own this omission. Neither did he trigger a complaint under Dignity at Work.

9 I would have liked to have seen a more hands on management of the workers sick leave by the company. I understand his disappointment when he said no one in local management checked in on his welfare. However, that omission does not excuse his erratic attendance at Occupational Health.

10 I find that this employment has drifted since July 2024 and would have benefitted significantly had the workers medical reports been shared with the Employer for purely restorative and constructive reasons.

The Worker has got lost in the primary process of sick leave and latterly awaiting the secondary legislative pathway of Personal Injuries.

I have found some merit in this dispute.

Sick leave, staff relations, bullying.