Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Salesperson

A Manufacturing and Industrial

Services Company.

Representatives

Self-Represented

Dajana Sinik 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 - 00004445

09/06/2025

The Worker contends that he experienced unfair and exclusionary treatment, including poor communication, withheld information, reassigned customers and duties, and limited promotional opportunities. He maintains that management failed to address his concerns, causing professional and personal harm, and that the subsequent external grievance process did not resolve the matter.

The Employer denies any bullying, harassment, exclusion or unfair treatment, stating that changes to roles and customer allocations reflected legitimate business needs. It says it appointed an independent investigator, but the Worker resigned before the substantially progressed investigation could be completed, preventing findings and resolution through internal procedures.

Worker's Case

The Worker contends that, over an extended period, they were subjected to bullying, harassment, victimisation, exclusion from information necessary to perform their role, and unfair treatment by management. They further claim that concerns raised internally, including protected disclosures, resulted in detrimental treatment and were not appropriately addressed.

The Worker submits that, while managing a key national account and customer relationships on behalf of the Employer, they experienced a sustained pattern of exclusion from relevant business information, restrictions on their role not applied to colleagues, and conduct that undermined their position, particularly by a senior manager.

It is alleged that concerns first arose in 2022 following management meetings during which the Worker's views were dismissed and a subsequent workplace dispute occurred. While no disciplinary action followed, the Worker contends that a pattern of adverse treatment developed thereafter.

The Worker further alleges that from late 2022 onwards they were excluded from important operational and customer-related information, omitted from normal workplace communications, and denied annual performance reviews in 2022 and 2023. The Worker also contends that pay review outcomes were less favourable than expected.

The Worker submits that during 2023 they experienced hostile and dismissive treatment from management, including issues relating to a proposed employment contract, and that complaints raised internally were minimised rather than investigated. They further allege that requests for operational information were ignored and that other workplace interactions and communications were handled in a manner perceived as disrespectful and undermining.

In 2024, the Worker contends that significant management appointments and business developments occurred without their knowledge or involvement. They also allege that they participated in a recruitment process on the understanding that they would be considered for a role but were subsequently informed otherwise.

In 2025, the Worker alleges that inappropriate comments were made by a manager, that details of a job application were discussed with colleagues, and that concerns relating to the present complaint were again minimised.

Overall, the Worker submits that the cumulative effect of these events demonstrates a sustained pattern of exclusion, hostile treatment, and a failure by management to address concerns appropriately. They contend that this created an unsupportive working environment, causing anxiety, distress, reputational damage, difficulties in performing their duties, and adverse effects on both the Worker and their family.

The Worker further submits that concerns were raised with senior management on multiple occasions but were dismissed, minimised, or ignored.

Relief Sought

The Worker seeks a finding that the Employer failed to provide a safe, respectful and appropriate working environment. The Worker further seeks compensation, the implementation of appropriate workplace policies and procedures, and any other relief considered just and equitable by the Adjudication Officer.

Preliminary Issue

The Employer  submits that the complaint represented the first occasion on which it became aware of the concerns now raised by the Worker. Upon receipt of the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, the Operations Manager contacted the Worker and outlined both informal and formal options available under the Company's internal procedures. According to the Employer the Worker declined to pursue those procedures and confirmed during a meeting on 27 June 2025 that he wished instead to proceed directly to a hearing before the Commission.

The Employer  contends that, by failing to raise these matters internally at an earlier stage, the Worker deprived it of an opportunity to investigate and address the concerns locally. It further submits that the complaint as originally presented lacked sufficient detail as to dates, incidents, individuals involved and the specific conduct complained of.

Expansion of the Complaint

The Employer  states that further particulars of the complaint emerged through a number of submissions furnished by the Worker between July 2025 and December 2025.

These included allegations concerning communication difficulties with a former manager, exclusion from information, lack of promotional opportunities, absence of sales meetings, bullying, alienation, poor managerial conduct, victimisation, procedural unfairness, the absence of performance reviews and alleged detrimental treatment following internal complaints and protected disclosures.

The Employer  submits that many of these matters did not appear in the original complaint referral and were expanded upon only at a later stage.

Substantive Response

In relation to the alleged breakdown in communication, the Employer  accepts that the working relationship between the Worker and his former manager became strained but contends that communication nevertheless continued on a professional basis. It further submits that organisational changes in late 2024 altered reporting arrangements and reduced the level of day-to-day contact between the parties.

The Employer  denies withholding information from the Worker and maintains that information was shared in accordance with operational requirements and employee responsibilities. It relies upon email and WhatsApp communications as evidence of ongoing engagement.

The Employer  rejects the allegation that the Worker was excluded from work opportunities, restricted in the performance of his duties, or removed from the Dublin sales area. It submits that any reassignment of customers arose from legitimate business considerations following the appointment of an additional sales representative and that these changes were discussed with the Worker.

In respect of promotion opportunities, the Employer  states that the Worker was encouraged to pursue advancement opportunities but was not considered suitable for a particular role following assessment by an independent recruitment consultant. It disputes the Worker's characterisation of certain meetings as constituting a formal interview process.

The Employer  further submits that the Worker benefited from a number of salaries increases during his employment and that consideration had been given to creating a developmental role for him. It states that formal annual performance reviews were not an established feature of the sales function.

The Employer  denies any breach of data protection obligations and rejects allegations concerning operational and delivery issues, maintaining that such matters arose in the ordinary course of business.

The Employer  also denies allegations of hostile, abusive or inappropriate conduct by management. It submits that the incidents relied upon by the Worker are either disputed, unsupported, or lack the context necessary for proper evaluation. The Employer  points to what it says was a history of support provided to the Worker throughout his employment.

Finally, the Employer  denies that the Worker was subjected to bullying, harassment, exclusion or any form of inappropriate treatment. It submits that the Worker did not utilise the Company's grievance, dignity at work, or bullying and harassment procedures prior to referring the dispute to the Commission and contends that it acted reasonably and appropriately throughout the employment relationship.

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

Section 13

I was clear with the parties of my role as an  Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is not to determine legal liability or to substitute my own judgment for that of management in operational matters. Rather, my function is to investigate the trade dispute referred, consider the relevant evidence and relevant submissions of the parties and, crucially, make a recommendation in resolution of the dispute. A recommendation that may be rejected by either party; it has no legal force.

Present Case

In the present case, the matters properly falling for consideration are the Worker 's allegations concerning his treatment in the workplace, including an alleged breakdown in communication, exclusion from information relevant to the performance of his role, the reassignment of customers and duties, access to promotional opportunities, the conduct of management towards him, and the Employer 's handling of concerns raised internally.

These are matters that go to the quality of the employment relationship and whether the Worker  was treated fairly and reasonably in accordance with accepted workplace standards.

To the extent that issues concerning data protection, health and safety and rates of pay arise, they fall outside the scope of this investigation under section 13, and I do not propose to make any recommendation in respect of them

The central issue for recommendation , therefore, is whether the Worker  was subjected to unfair, inappropriate or exclusionary treatment during the course of his employment and whether the Employer  responded appropriately to the concerns raised by him.

Supplementary Submission and Adjudicator Jurisdiction

On the eve of  the resumed hearing, the Employer  submitted a supplementary submission in which it argued that, following the Worker 's resignation, the grievance investigation could not continue as it was an internal HR process applicable only to employees. The investigator informed the Worker  on 11 June 2026 that the investigation was being discontinued on that basis. The Worker had sight of this document in advance of the hearing.

I accept that the Employer  acted positively in appointing an independent external investigator and I have some sympathy for its position where the investigator concluded that the process could not continue following the Worker 's departure from the company. However, I am not persuaded that the resignation of the Worker  necessarily prevented the completion of an investigation which was already substantially advanced. The Worker  had participated extensively in the process and had expressly requested that it continue following his departure. Witness interviews remained outstanding, but there is no obvious reason why those steps could not have been completed and findings reached notwithstanding the termination of the employment relationship.

In those circumstances, I do not accept the Employer 's submission that the discontinuance of the employment deprives the Commission of jurisdiction or prevents consideration of the dispute. I therefore proceed to examine the substantive issues raised by the parties.

Substantive Dispute

As regards the substantive dispute and the appropriate recommendation, the Worker was not entirely clear as to the outcome sought. Since leaving the Employer 's employment, the Worker has secured alternative employment and appears to have established himself successfully in that role.

The Worker indicated that he sought acknowledgement of the manner in which he felt he had been treated. While the Employer  did not accept the Worker’s characterisation of events, it did acknowledge his value, skills and contribution to the business and accepted that certain matters could have been handled better. The Worker did not regard this as an adequate resolution of his concerns.

The Worker stated that he would be prepared to work for the Employer  again if, in his view, the organisation were managed differently. That is not a practical outcome and, in any event, is not a recommendation that could realistically be made by an Adjudication Officer.

I heard submissions  concerning the distress experienced by the Worker and the impact he says the situation had on his family life and personal circumstances. I accept that the Worker experienced genuine upset arising from the breakdown in the employment relationship and I have taken that into account.

I am also mindful of the Employer ’s position that the matters in dispute may not be finally concluded by these proceedings and that this constrains the extent to which it is prepared to make concessions or admissions in the context of resolving the dispute.

I am satisfied that aspects of the Employer 's management of the employment relationship, including aspects of communication and the manner in which concerns were addressed, fell below the standard that might reasonably have been expected in the circumstances.

The Worker requested that I make an order directing the Employer  to implement appropriate workplace policies and procedures. S13 of the Industrial Relations Act give me no such power. The Worker sought an apology for the way they had been treated; this is not an IR remedy.

Conclusion

Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the employment relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down. What is important at this point that the parties can carry on without further action hanging over their head and any recommendation I make should be in full and final settlement of the matter and other arising matters referred to at the hearings.

The Worker left the employment and secured alternative employment immediately thereafter. While I acknowledge the hurt and distress, he says he experienced, the worker has secured a seamless transition to a new role where he has few losses and in those circumstances the only recommendation I see fitting to resolve the matter is the following:

In recognition of the distress experienced by the Worker, the breakdown in the employment relationship from the shortcomings identified in the Employer’s  management of the matters complained of, I recommend that the Employer  pay the Worker a sum equivalent to four weeks' gross basic  salary. I make this recommendation with a view to bringing finality to the matters in dispute between the parties and a further part of my recommendation is that payment be only  made and accepted  on the basis that the Worker confirms in writing that he accepts the payment in full and final settlement of any current or pending issues, complaints, claims, or disputes arising from the employment relationship. This is to bring finality to the disputes and issues  between the parties.