ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00003933

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Date of Hearing:  29/08/2025

Procedure:

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 11th March 2025.  There was no objection by the Employer to the WRC investigating this dispute.  Following delegation to me by the Director General, I inquired into this dispute and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence.  This dispute was heard remotely on 29th August 2025.  The Worker was in attendance and unrepresented.  The Employer was represented by Mr Peter Gilfedder on behalf of IBEC.  Witnesses were in attendance on behalf of both Parties.  Both Parties made submissions and all of the relevant documentation pertaining to the Worker’s employment including the grievance and disciplinary processes were submitted by the Employer.  Section 13(8) of the Act provides that hearings shall be held in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the Parties within this recommendation should not be published.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Complainant had been in employment with the Respondent under a CE Scheme from 1st October 2018.  She was employed as a Shop Assistant in one of its charity shops.  She contended that following a new Manager being assigned to her shop in or around August 2024, some of her duties had been taken away from her without explanation or in writing.  She had also objected to the introduction of a checklist.  She felt aggrieved that after eight years of loyal service to the Respondent, the trust had gone.  She had raised a grievance in relation to differences with her Manager which was not upheld at any stage.  On 7th March 2025, she was suspended on full pay and subject to an investigation arising from a complaint against her by her Manager.  At the time of referral of this dispute to the WRC on 11th March 2025, she contended that this process including statements provided by her colleagues for the purposes of the investigation constituted bullying and harassment.  She was interviewed as part of the investigation on 14th March 2025 and on 28th March 2025, she transferred her employment under the CE Scheme to another Charity.  Under cover of email dated 13th May 2025 from HR, she received an Investigation Report making findings of misconduct against her and stating that as she had resigned, the Employer considered “this matter closed”.  Accordingly, there was no mechanism by which she could appeal against the findings.  On 10th August 2025, the Worker made an updated submission to the WRC asserting that this constituted defamation of character and she wanted her good name restored.  Although she had moved on and had received a good reference, the Charity sector was small.  She further contended that having overcome significant hardship and homelessness in her life, the investigation process had adversely impacted upon her mental health.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that the WRC should not entertain this dispute in circumstances where the Worker had not firstly availed of its grievance process as required by the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work before referral to the WRC.  The Employer’s Representative confirmed that the investigation had continued after the Worker had transferred employment to another Charity in order to bring closure to the matter.  He further confirmed that in the normal course, the matter would have progressed on to a disciplinary process which entailed the right of appeal but as the Worker was no longer an employee, no appeal had not been offered.  

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the factual background and submissions made on behalf of both Parties to this dispute.  I am satisfied that that the investigation process was conducted in accordance with the Employer’s policy until the Investigation Report issued.  As a matter of natural and constitutional justice and in accordance with the requirements of S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures), I find that in circumstances where the Employer continued the investigation process after the Worker had transferred her employment, she should have been afforded an internal appeal mechanism in relation to the findings of misconduct made against her.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to this dispute.  For the aforesaid reasons, I recommend that within a period of 42 days, the Employer either writes to the Worker confirming that the findings of misconduct contained in the Investigation Report dated 13th May 2025 are expunged (removed) from her record OR provides the Complainant with an appeals process in accordance with fair procedures allowing her to challenge the findings against her.

Dated:   17th of December 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard