Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Tutor

A Charity

Representatives

Self Represented

 IBEC Regional Director

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 - 00005780

02/12/2025

The Worker was employed as a Tutor and raised grievances regarding the assignment of a Marker to her work and how her personal belongings were stored while out on leave and these grievances were upheld after investigation. The Worker resigned her employment and submitted a dispute to the WRC regarding her time working for the Employer. 

The Worker submitted a very detailed analysis of events and timelines and I have summarised the main issues here.

The Worker was employed from June 2019 to November 2025 as a Tutor.

She advised she was a dedicated worker and loved working with the Learners.

She advised the her purpose in bringing this matter forward is to seek acknowledgement of what happened, recognition of the impact it had on her, and assurance that lessons can be learned so that other employees do not experience similar circumstances.

The Worker advised she developed strong relationships with Learners and was committed to their education and progress. The Worker submitted a lengthy submission but essentially  had two main issues; the assignment of a Marker to her work without prior engagement and where her personal belongings were stored when she went out sick. Her primary concern was to ensure similar issues are dealt with differently in the future with other staff.

During approximately 16 months in the Tutor role, she believed that her performance was satisfactory.

. October 2024 – Marking Discussion In October 2024, She had an informal conversation with the Coordinator, regarding the marking of a learner’s work and report regarding the customer service module. During the October conversation, the Coordinator advised her that some of her markings were considered too high. This was an informal conversation. She was not told that she was entering a formal performance process, that her performance was considered unsatisfactory, that her Tutor position was at risk, or that a performance improvement plan was being started. She was also told the level 4 module she had delivered would not be submitted this round. She was very disappointed about this after all the hard work that had gone into them. She questioned the work safety module as it has been completed and was ready for submission since May. She was informed of this discussion to hold back folder for submission verbally on 23 October 2024, even though the submission date was not until 27 November 2024 — leaving over a month to discuss or make any necessary adjustments. Instead of providing time for professional dialogue or support, management chose to delay submission later and create unnecessary pressure down the line. The Worker spoke with the Coordinator about how the External authenticator is to provide an independent review. This conversation ended with no follow up no written document following any policy or procedure around marking. Following the October conversation, the Worker understood there had been discussion about her work not being submitted between management and coordinator. However, there was no formal performance meeting, warning, improvement plan or agreed corrective action explaining that her performance was considered unsatisfactory. The Worker continued working in her Tutor role. • Delivering classes progressing module work • Preparing revision work for support staff • Supporting leaners as their keyperson • Liaising with Family and BOC staff • Corrections • Administration work • Prepare the level 3 modules for submission.

On 4 February 2025  the Worker was informed by her manager that the Tutor position was going to be advertised and that she could apply.

10 February 2025 – Contract Extension; The Worker received confirmation that her Tutor contract was extended until 4 May 2025 while the recruitment process was taking place. The Tutor position was advertised on 10 February 2025. The closing date for applications was 24 February 2025.

11 February 2025 – Marking Review. The Worker was informed that another Tutor would review her marking, with authority to adjust or reallocate student marks she had assigned. The Worker had not been consulted before this arrangement was introduced. She found this undermining and professionally upsetting because it directly affected her work and professional judgement. Her concern was not that another staff member could ever provide support. Her concern was the lack of consultation and communication about a decision that directly affected her role.

The Worker met with the Regional Manager and HR and raised concerns about the lack of consultation, discussions about her work without her involvement, the marking review, and the impact the situation was having on her. The Worker then went on sick eave for a few months.

On 7 November 2025, the Worker returned to collect her personal belongings from her desk. She experienced what she considered hostile and rude behaviour from a former colleague. She was called a liar and told there was nothing important in the drawer. The Worker reported the incident to management.. The only outcome communicated to her was advice that Area Managers should leave employees’ belongings in a box and hold them until the employee was ready to collect them. The Worker was not provided with findings regarding the behavior itself.

After another incident, the Worker gave her notice because she felt she could no longer make the situation work within the organization. The experience had come to a head after approximately nine months of stress and going back and forth through the grievance process. She felt it was affecting her confidence and her career as a Tutor.

On 27 November 2025, the Worker received the outcome confirming that the first and second grievances were upheld. The findings included no documented evidence that she was not meeting requested targets or objectives, no highlighted areas showing significant improvement was required, no formal written warnings, and positive emails from management acknowledging good work and dedication.

Grievance 2 concerned with the Supportive Action Plan. The findings included no prior notice, no documented formal discussion, lack of input from her, and the need for collaborative input. She was advised that the decision concluded the internal grievance procedure.

The primary outcome the Worker sought is acknowledgement that the way these matters were handled was wrong. She sought recognition of the lack of consultation concerning the marking review, the lack of prior notice and collaborative discussion regarding the Supportive Action Plan, the impact the events had on her confidence and career, and the fact that both internal grievances were upheld. She also wanted lessons to be learned so that employees are properly consulted, supported, and given an opportunity to respond when concerns arise about their work. In the staff handbook, it states that it is the policy of the organization to develop staff through effective management, support, development, and engagement. It also says staff should be supported as valued team members, and their personal and professional dignity should be upheld. The Worker believed her dignity at work was affected by the repeated way in which management dealt with her. Decisions relating to her work were made without proper consultation and she was not given a meaningful opportunity to express her views or have her professional judgement considered.

The Worker moved to a Specific Purpose Contract as from the 21/08/2023 as a Tutor / Day Supports Facilitator covering a career break. When the career break finished, that member of staff who was on the career break advised the organisation on the 24.01.25 in writing giving notice of leaving employment. The organisation decided that the hours associated with this role would be increased due to another tutor reducing hours therefore increasing hours of this role to 72 from 62.4.

On the 10/02/25 the permanent role, as a Tutor, was advertised at these increased hours. Advertising of permanent role would be normal practice within the organisation.

The Education & Vocational Training manager had a conversation with the Worker in February 2025 advising of the change in the role hours and enquired if she was interested in extending her current contract to cover the recruitment phase. The Worker agreed to the contracted being extended until the 4/05/2025.

The Worker applied and attended for interview for the permanent position on the 05/03/2025. She subsequently went out on sick leave from the 10/3/25 to the 22/07/25 on work related stress.

The Manager reached out to the Worker on the 10/03/2025 acknowledging receipt of the sick cert, via email offered support and proposed a meeting to resolve any issues.

The Worker was not successful in her application for this role and was informed by the Recruiter on the 18/03/2025.

Following an Occupational health visit on the 14th of April 2025 a HR Generalist met with the Worker on the 30th April 2025 to discuss the Workers’ concerns raised and her work-related stress. It was agreed that the Worker would meet with the Regional Manager of the programme to discuss her concerns.

On the 21/05/2025, the Regional Manager and HR Generalist met with the Worker. In this meeting, it was agreed that the Regional Manger would conduct fact finding with her manager in relation to the concerns raised.

The Regional Manager met with the Worker on the 25/06/2025 sharing the outcome of the conversations she had with her Manager and that there were differing accounts as to what happened. The Regional Manager also informed the Worker that she could raise a grievance formally. The Worker was not satisfied with the Regional Managers response to her concerns and HR advised the Worker of her options which included raising a grievance. A copy of the grievance policy was provided to the Worker.

The Worker was certified fit by her GP to return to work from the 23rd of July 2025 on a part time basis. The Worker took annual leave from 23/7/25 to 11/8/25 and then was granted 3 unpaid leave, returning physically to the position of her original permanent contract on the 18/8/25. This was in a different location. The Worker asked to work part time hours in a different location and ended up working with her agreement to 1 day per week for 7 hours. The company facilitated these part time hours on the request of the Worker.

The Worker lodged a grievance on the 07/08/2025 in relation to a lack of consultation in a matter that took place on the 11th of February 2025 where the situation left the Worker feeling overwhelmed and stressed. The Worker confirmed that she wanted to skip stage 1 of the grievance process and proceed to stage 2 which the company then proceeded to evoke. A grievance meeting was held on the 24/09/2025. The Worker was offered the right to representation at all times but declined this offer. The Worker was issued with the outcome of the grievance on the 27/11/25 outlining that Grievance was upheld.

On the 7th of November 25, the Worker visited the location where she had worked. She emailed HR and the Regional Manager on the same date saying she was met with hostility from a colleague and wanted it investigated.

On the 21st November 2025 the Regional Manager responded to the Worker sharing that her items should have been available for her and that she had ‘since advised all areas and managers that if such situation transpires where a staff if off or not working in their areas for any length of time their items should be securely boxed up and given to the regional/ community manager for them to hold until such time as they can be given/ returned to the relevant staff.

The Worker handed in her notice on the 14/11/25, advising her last day would be the 17/11/25

HR met with the Worker on the 17/11/25 and asked her to reconsider her resignation. The Worker declined to rescind her resignation. HR called the Worker also on the 17/11/25 to ask to meet for an exit interview which was due to take place with the Worker on the 26/11/25, however the Worker cancelled on the day. HR did then meet with the Worker on the 4 01/12/25 to discuss her resignation and asked her to reconsider. The Worker declined both offers and the Workers termination date was processed as of the 17/11/25.

Respondent’s position: As per the company’s position on workplace grievances, the Worker raised a grievance in line with the company’s grievance policy. The grievance was heard and the findings issued to the Worker which upheld her grievances. While the grievance process was concluding the Worker resigned from her position. The respondent company discharged its duty under natural justice and its grievance policy by investigating the matter and issuing the outcome report and in accordance with fair procedures. The Worker was offered a role in another location on part time hours, at her request which was agreed to and continued to work there until her resignation on the 17/11/025, further showing evidence that the Employer was willing and able to support the Worker in her employment with the company. The Employer also asked the Worker on numerous occasions to rescind her resignation however she did not do this, therefore not allowing the Employer to opportunity to support the Worker even further in her employment. The Employer notes that the Worker has raised various questions and queries within her submission. As the Worker is a former employee who voluntarily resigned, the employment relationship has been fully severed. Consequently, these queries fall entirely outside the scope of the Industrial Relations Acts.

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

The Worker raised grievances that were investigated and two were upheld. The Worker stated the investigation took too long but it took three months which in the Adjudicators experience was not unusual and the Worker and Investigator had planned holidays in the middle of the investigation. The Worker was offered an alternative Investigator which she declined. The Worker raised legitimate concerns regarding the assignment of a Marker and how her personal belongings were stored prior to her leaving the employment. The Employer investigated these complaints and they were found to be valid. The Worker was concerned about the impact of events at work on her but the Employer assured her that she was a respected and valued employee.  The Worker choose to resign and obviously felt the environment was not supportive of her. The grievances she raised were investigated and findings issued after a comprehensive investigation. As the Worker is no longer an employee there is no current industrial relations issue for the Adjudication Officer to resolve.

Grievance