Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Business Development Manager

A Financial Services Company

Representatives

Norman A. Croke

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 - 00001757

08/09/2023

The Worker commenced his employment on 17 October 2022. He stated that an investigation conducted by the Employer into allegations of bullying and harassment he made was wholly flawed. He further stated that he was not given the opportunity to rebut allegations that were made against him during the investigation.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 17 October 2022. He telephoned the Chief People Officer on 14 February 2023, and informally complained that he felt he was being bullied and harassed by his boss.

In a further discussion with the CEO, on 23 March 2023, the Worker advised that could no longer tolerate the hostile working environment and was prepared to leave. It was therefore agreed that he would leave his job and be offered a partnership Agreement with the Employer. Following his discussion with the CEO, the Worker gave two months’ notice of the termination of his employment to the Employer on 29 March 2023. By email reply, the Chief People Officer asked that the Worker remain on garden leave until 29 May 2023. 

Following his decision to resign, and having been placed on garden leave, the Worker, reflected upon his decision to leave his employment due to workplace stress, harassment, and bullying. He subsequently advised the Chief People Officer by email on 27 April 2023, that he was rescinding his notice to terminate his employment and requested that a formal investigation be carried out into his claim that he was subjected to bullying and harassment in work. The Chief People Officer replied stating that he would not accept the Worker’s attempt to rescind his resignation but would carry out an investigation into the complaints that he made nonetheless.

The Chief People Officer subsequently commenced a fact-finding investigation and met with the Worker on 19 May 2023. The Worker was advised at the commencement of the meeting, that the meeting was not a formal meeting into allegations of bullying and harassment. After his informal meeting with the Worker, on 19 May 2023, the Chief People Officer conducted an investigation of the Worker’s allegations with a further four witnesses, three of whom were unnamed.

The Chief People Officer in his investigation report inexplicably referred to three complaints which had been made against the Worker, without his knowledge and which he was not allowed to challenge or rebut at any stage during the investigation. One of these was dismissed, another was partly upheld and a third was upheld.  There was no avenue of appeal provided to the Worker in respect of the findings made in the report.

The Employer chose not to attend on the day of the hearing and did not provide any written submission.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant evidence presented to me. I have also examined the internal company procedures along with S.I No 674/2020, Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work.

My role in this type of dispute is not to re-investigate the complaints and is instead to enquire into matters to ensure that appropriate procedures and due process were afforded to the Worker during the investigation. I note firstly that the Worker was not informed of any allegations that were made against him and he did not become aware of same until he received the final investigation report. I further noted that the names of those who made the allegations against the Worker were not revealed to him at any stage throughout the investigation and were not included in the Investigator’s report. In addition, the Worker was not allowed to challenge or rebut any of the allegations that were made against him during the investigation at any stage and that. I also note that the Worker was not allowed to appeal the findings of the investigation that were made against him.

Considering the foregoing points, I find that the investigation was wholly flawed and was not in line with either the principles of natural justice, the Respondent’s own procedures or those set out in S.I No 674/2020, Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work