Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Office Administrator

Educational Institute

Representatives

Ms. Martina Weir, SIPTU

Mr. Declan Thomas, IBEC

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 - 00001417

27/05/2023

On 27th May 2023, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her employer failed to investigate a series of formal grievances raised by her in accordance with the relevant internal policy. By response, the Employer submitted that the grievances were investigated to the best of the Employer’s ability and that a decision duly issued in respect of the same.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 12th January 2026. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submitted that she attempted to address a series of serious complaints of harassment with the Employer by engaging with the informal procedures. When these efforts failed to produce any form of resolution, the Worker engaged with a formal process on 29th November 2022 by issuing correspondence to the Employer. Thereafter, the Employer convened a meeting with the Worker at short notice to discuss these matters. Notwithstanding the same, no formal meeting under the auspices of the internal procedure was convened, and the matter was effectively ignored by the Employer until the date of referral of the present dispute.

Following the referral to the present dispute, the parties engaged in a belated process regarding the complaints. Due to the delay in the process, the alleged perpetrator of the harassment had left the organisation, and no resolution was offered in respect of the matters raised by the Worker. In addition to the foregoing, the complaints raised by the Worker were framed as an attempt on her part to force a transfer from the relevant department. In the view of the Worker, her concerns were effectively ignored while she was blamed for raising issues in the first place.

Thereafter, the Worker sought to appeal the findings of the internal procedure. The Worker submitted that her concerns were again ignored for a considerable period of time and that once the Employer engaged in a form of appeal, again no form of resolution was communicated in respect of the complaints.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that a recommendation should issue in her favour in respect of the present dispute.

Regarding the present dispute, the Employer has submitted that the Worker's allegations were investigated to the best of their ability and in accordance with the relevant internal procedures.

In this regard, the Employer submitted that the Worker had previously sought a transfer from her current role within the organisation. When the Worker was informed that the transfer could not be facilitated, as there was no relevant internal procedure in relation to the same, they submitted that the Worker then raised the present grievance in an effort to force the issue. The Employer accepted that the Worker raised formal grievances on 29th November 2022. The employer noted that the relevant dispute had been referred under the grievance procedure, rather than the dignity at work process, which hampered the ability of the Employer to properly investigate the allegations raised. This matter was addressed with the Worker in the course of the investigation, however, the Worker confirmed that she did not wish to pursue a complaint under the dignity at work procedure and maintained her complaint under the Employers' grievance procedure.

Regarding the allegations themselves, it was noted by the Employer that the respondent to the complaint had left the business, and had done so by the date of the referral of the complaint. Within these extremely limiting parameters, an outcome was issued on the 25th of June 2023. As a consequence of the Employer’s inability to investigate the complaints in any material fashion, they were deemed to be not upheld.

Thereafter, the Worker elected to appeal the finding in accordance with the internal grievance procedures, and appeal meetings were convened in late 2023 and early 2024. Again, following a full investigation of the issues, the independent appeals person found that as the respondent to the complaints had left the organisation, and in circumstances whereby the matter was referred under the grievance procedure, no proper investigation could commence in relation to these matters and the Worker's grievances were deemed to be not upheld.

In this regard, the Employer submitted that they faced insurmountable barriers in relation to the investigation of these matters. Firstly, they submitted that the Worker submitted the formal complaint under the grievance procedure, rather than the dignity at work procedure, and refused to have the matter dealt with under the latter, more appropriate, process. Secondly, they submitted that the respondent to the complaint had left the business by the time of the referral of the formal complaint, and that they had no power to summon him in relation to the allegations raised.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Employer submitted that no recommendation in favour of the Worker should issue in relation to the present dispute.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker submitted that the Employer engaged in an unwarranted delay in the investigation of a formal complaint. She further submitted that no material outcome issued in respect of the same and that her complaints were effectively ignored.   

In this regard, it is common case that the Worker raised a series of formal grievances on 29th November 2022. Thereafter, no formal meeting was convened in respect of the same for a period of seven months, until June 2023. It is further noted that meetings in respect to the present issue were only convened once the Worker raised the present complaint. This delay can only be described as excessive, with no real rationale offered as to the reason for the same. It is also difficult to disagree with the Worker’s submission that she was effectively being ignored by the Employer and that she was obliged to refer the present dispute in order to progress matters.  

Regarding the investigation itself, the Employer submitted that the same was fundamentally constrained by issues beyond their control. They submitted that the Worker elected to refer the complaints under the grievance procedure, rather than the Dignity at Work process, thereby hampering the ability of the Employer to investigate the complaints properly. Notwithstanding the same, once the Worker elected to proceed under the grievance procedure, it was incumbent on the Employer to investigate the matter in accordance with that procedure and to issue a reasoned outcome in due course.

The Employer further stated that the investigation was fundamentally constrained as the alleged perpetrator had left employment by the date of referral. While this has natural consequences for the ability of the Employer to investigate allegations, it does not automatically follow that the allegations themselves are to be dismissed and deemed unfounded. Rather, the Employer retains a duty to investigate to the best of their abilities and issue a reasoned outcome in respect of the same. In the present case, it appears that the Employer formed the view that as the respondent to the complaint had left the business, that the complaints raised could not be investigated and no substantive outcome issued. This created a situation whereby the Worker raised a series of serious complaints, and received no material outcome in relation to the same.

Having regard to the foregoing I agree with the submission of the Worker and a recommendation will issue in her favour.

Investigation, Grievance, Dignity at Work