Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

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 - 00006274

02/02/2026

The Worker is a long standing employee in the Employer’s hospitality business. In August 2025 the Worker experienced two undermining and unacceptable interactions where her manager was aggressive and hostile to her. She sought to raise this and some other issues via the Employer’s handbook and submitted complaints of bullying which were upheld.

While the Worker’s complaints were upheld and the manager left the business soon thereafter she felt what she went through was not properly recognised in the process. The Employer initially discussed the possibility of paying her compensation but then rejected that possibility. The Worker has both medical expenses and loss of income from the time of the dispute and the whole experience badly damaged her confidence.

The Employer initially did not object to the trade dispute being investigated but later notified the WRC that they would not participate in the hearing.

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

The Employer appears to have followed its own policies and arranged a robust investigation of the Worker’s grievance, incurring the expense of a respected professional investigator. This resulted in the complaint being upheld. While the matters which were subject to the grievance were not of a serious enough nature to warrant dismissal the manager departed soon after. In the circumstances the Employer was reasonable to consider the matter closed.

The Worker had found the process extremely upsetting and alleges it was damaging to her health. She went on sick leave and incurred medical costs shortly after referring the complaint. While the Employer has since introduced an Employee Assistance Program it had none at the time of the investigation. Though the Worker is part-time there was no offer to move around shifts or even consider any sort of protective measures while the investigation process was ongoing. Given the Worker was with the company 10 years and the manager was there for 20 it was foreseeable that this would be a difficult process for the Worker and the Employer should have recognised this and explored whether supports could have ameliorated this. The Worker’s submissions were that there was no such discussion and that she was entirely unsupported while the complaint was investigated.

The Worker acknowledges the Employer has become a much better place to work and that the culture is much more collaborative and positive. This is an obviously positive outcome and reflects well on both the Employer and Worker. However, I am concerned that the Worker reports casual references being made to this process in the workplace, is now raising a grievance about that issue and that she reports that she is suffering anxiety in the workplace despite the general improvement to the atmosphere.

Due to the lack of support during the course of the investigation I am of the view that it is reasonable to recommend some compensation for the Worker. However, I note the Employer’s decision not to engage with this process and I infer that they believe there needs to be some closure of the matter. In the circumstances I would recommend structured engagement between the Worker and Employer to see if they can move past these issues.  I do not think a recommendation of compensation by the Employer, without some acknowledgement by the Worker that this will resolve matters finally is useful and I would suggest that the issue of compensation be resolved by the parties in the context of a wider mediation to improve the working relationship.