Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Youth Worker

A Community Organisation

Representatives

Peo Mosepele, BL

 Laura Powney, HR Space

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 - 00003198

26/09/2024

The organisation has been established for over twenty years and provides support to individuals and families involved with drugs.  The staff work with young people to prevent them misusing drugs and to encourage them to become involved in healthy activities.  The worker commenced with the organisation as a youth worker in November 2022.  He resigned on October 1st 2024, and he claims that his resignation was because of his employer’s failure to properly investigate his complaint that he was bullied by a colleague.  In a very comprehensive submission provided to the WRC in advance of the hearing of this dispute, the worker sought the following remedies:

1.       A finding that his employer erred in the way in which they addressed his claim of bullying;

2.       A declaration that he was constructively dismissed;

3.       A recommendation that his employer request the Health and Safety Authority to review their health and safety procedures and their procedures for dealing with bullying and grievances;

4.       That the employer becomes a member of the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI);

5.       That the organisation’s managers attend a NYCI course on Managing Complaints and Allegations and on the prevention of bullying;

6.       That the employer provides him with a reference.

In her submission on behalf of the worker, Ms Mosepele said that, shortly after he commenced in his role, he was bullied by a colleague.  For convenience I will refer to the alleged bully as “AB.”  The worker attempted to engage with AB about her behaviour, but without success.  On November 29th 2023, he claims that a major incident of bullying occurred, which he reported to his manager.  I will refer to the worker’s line manager as “Manager 2.”  Although Manager 2 addressed the issue with AB, the worker said that her bullying continued.  Following a third incident on March 26th 2024, Manager 2 advised the worker to submit a written account of his complaint to the manager of the organisation, “Manager 1.”  A copy of this document of March 26th 2024 was included in the worker’s submission.

On April 4th 2024, Manager 1 asked the worker to attend a meeting with her, Manager 2 and AB.  The worker was distressed by this experience and he asked Manager 1 to meet him on his own.  At the end of their discussion, Manager 1 said that she would arrange a follow up meeting with someone for the worker to discuss his complaint.

On April 9th 2024, the worker met with a member of the board of directors.  I will refer to this person as “Director 2.”  The worker said that he offered to provide Director 2 with a list of incidents of bullying that he had experienced, but he said that this was declined.  Instead, Director 2 asked the worker to engage in mediation.  The mediation took place the following day, with Director 2 acting as the mediator.  The worker said that the outcome from the mediation did not resolve his complaint.

On May 30th 2024, the worker asked Manager 1 for an investigation into his grievance.  He claims that this was refused.  He went on holidays in June and, when he returned, he was physically sick.  On July 1st, his doctor advised him to go on sick leave.

On July 3rd 2024, the worker submitted another formal complaint with details of the incidents of bullying that he claims occurred since early 2023.  On July 12th, he was invited to what was described as “an informal chat” with Manager 1, and two members of the board of directors, Director 1 and Director 2.  At the meeting, he was informed that AB was leaving the organisation, although the management were uncertain of the date of her planned departure.  The worker said that he asked for minutes to be taken of the meeting, but he was told that this wasn’t necessary because they were having an informal chat.  The worker said that, from this meeting, he got the impression that its purpose was to get him to drop his complaint and, he claims that, as a result, his well-being continued to worsen.

On July 22nd, Director 1 wrote to the worker to inform him that AB was leaving on August 2nd.  He was invited to return to work.  The worker replied that there was no mechanism in place to protect him from the alleged bullying.  He said that he wanted to appeal the organisation’s decision not to conduct a formal investigation into his complaint and he submitted a grievance about how his complaint had been handled up to that point.

Director 1 wrote to the worker by email at 17.15 on July 25th and said that he was satisfied that the mediation meeting of April 10th 2024 appeared to have been successful and that both sides had agreed to work together, and that the management had found no further issue of concern.  Following the meeting of July 12th, Director 1 said that the management met with AB on July 15th and that she did not agree with how the worker had described the incidents that had occurred between them.  AB told the management that she found the worker to be condescending towards her and the children they were working with and that he was aggressive towards her when the children were present.

As the findings of the management team were inconclusive, Director 1 said that they considered further mediation.  However, with AB having resigned, this option wasn’t feasible.  Director 1 concluded his email by informing the worker that the management committee found no evidence to support his complaint.  At 21.00 on the same day, the worker wrote again to Director 1.  He said that his recollection was that no consensus had been reached at mediation on April 10th, but that he and AB had agreed to do their best to work together on behalf of the children.  He said that the purpose of the meeting on May 30th was to move to the next stage of the bullying complaints procedure.  He again requested the appointment of an independent investigator to examine his complaints.

There was no reply to this email of July 25th.  As a result, the worker said that his health deteriorated further and he remained on sick leave.  On September 26th 2024, he submitted this complaint to the WRC.  He resigned on October 1st 2024.  

Concluding her submission for the worker, Ms Mosepele referred to the organisation’s HR guidebook and the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work.  She noted that the organisation’s procedure provides that any complaint of bullying “will be thoroughly investigated with due sensitivity to all involved parties” and that “there will be a right of appeal for all involved.”  The procedure also provides that an investigation will be conducted by the co-ordinator of the organisation and, if necessary, by an appropriate third party.  She said that, while the procedure contains protections for employees who raise grievances, this protection was not afforded to the worker in the circumstances that have been outlined.    

The submission provided by Ms Powney on behalf of the organisation sets out the chronology of events as they are described in the previous section.  Ms Powney also referred to an offer to the worker from the organisation on November 18th 2024, asking him to pause the WRC investigation to allow for an external review of his grievance, and for the employer to act on any recommendations from that review.  On December 2nd, the worker wrote to Manager 1 to inform her that he would be happy to discuss any such review at the WRC hearing itself.

Ms Powney said that the incident reported by the worker to Manager 2 on March 26th 2024 set in motion the steps taken by the organisation to resolve the issues between him and his colleague, AB.  She said that, at the meeting initiated by Manager 1 on April 4th, the worker described himself as feeling ambushed and Manager 1 then asked AB and Manager 2 to leave, so that she could speak to him alone.  The worker and AB attended separate meetings with Director 2 on April 9th.  The following day, Director 2 held a mediation meeting with the two colleagues.  The management believed that these meetings had helped to resolve the conflict between them.

Following the mediation, the management decided to monitor the relationship between the worker and AB through the team leader.  They agreed to increase the number of staff meetings along with supervision from an outside agency to resolve any further issues.  The employees concerned were informed that they could avail of counselling and the Employee Assistance Programme was updated.  Finally, a member of staff was appointed as a staff welfare officer to be the first point of contact for employees experiencing difficulties to support them to resolve problems.

Until they received the email from the worker on July 3rd 2024, the organisation was unaware of any further conflict between AB and the worker.  Director 2 met with the worker on July 12th.  The worker confirmed that there had been no incidents between him and AB since March 26th 2024.  Director 2 met with AB on July 15th to hear her response to the worker’s claims.

AB had decided to leave the organisation and the management’s view was that there was little point in further mediation.  Their view was that the incidents described by the worker depicted a poor relationship between him and AB but that there was no evidence of bullying.  They relied on the Code of Practice on the Prevention of Bullying in the Workplace which provides that an escalation of the process is not an automatic requirement if reasonable steps are taken to deal with issues in a prompt and supportive manner while all the evidence is evaluated.

I listened carefully to the worker outlining his complaint at the investigation of this matter on February 24th 2025.  I have considered the response of his former employer.  As the adjudicator in this matter, my role is not to investigate the worker’s complaint that he was bullied, but to determine if his employer dealt reasonably with his complaint.  The worker has also asked me to make certain recommendations in relation to remedies which I have outlined above.

After the meeting on April 4th 2024, the worker met Manager 1 and 2 and AB in the first instance, and then Manager 1 on her own.  At the mediation on April 10th 2024, AB and the worker agreed to move forward in the best interests of the children and after that, the worker raised no further complaints about incidents between him and AB.  For any person who feels that they are being bullied, their top priority must be for the bullying to stop.  As there were no further incidents after the conflict that occurred between the worker and AB on March 26th 2024, it seems to me that there was a positive outcome from the meetings on April 4th and 9th and the mediation on April 10th.  A question arises therefore, about whether there was a need for any further action or investigation after the mediation on April 10th 2024. 

At the end of May 2024, although there was no more conflict between the worker and AB, and no further incidents of alleged bullying on the part of AB, the worker continued to ask for his complaint about the incident that occurred on March 26th to be investigated.  It is my view that the employer acted reasonably and promptly by meeting the worker and AB on April 4th, by arranging a meeting with one of the directors on April 9th and by arranging the mediation on April 10th.  It is reasonable to conclude that the mediation had a positive outcome because no incidents arose afterwards.  In the absence of any further incidents, it is my view that it was reasonable for the employer to decide not to proceed with a formal investigation into the conflict between the two employees.  I find that this approach makes sense particularly because of AB’s decision in July 2024 to leave the organisation on August 2nd.

While he remained absent due to illness, on September 26th 2024, the worker submitted this dispute to the WRC.  He resigned a few days later on October 1st.  On November 18th, the employer asked him to pause his referral to the WRC and offered to appoint an external person to investigate his grievance.  The worker indicated that he would be open to hearing about the external review at the WRC hearing, but he did not agree to pause the hearing.  I find this to be somewhat contradictory, because, despite the fact that he had resigned, the employer offered the worker the investigation he was seeking.

Grievance procedures and policies to deal with harassment and bullying are, by necessity, progressive in nature and are intended to resolve matters between individuals in the first instance, without having to resort to formal and lengthy investigations that can often lead to stress and further conflict, apart altogether from the time and cost.  It is my view that, by mediating between the worker and AB on April 10th 2024, the organisation’s managers dealt reasonably with his complaints about AB, and, in the absence of any further conflict or bullying, there was no need to conduct a formal investigation.  AB’s departure on August 2nd 2024, brought their problematic relationship to an end and was an opportunity for the worker to return and start afresh.  Considering how he was treated by his employer, it is my view that the worker’s claim that he was constructively dismissed is not sustainable.

It is my view that the employer’s efforts to resolve the worker’s complaint about AB were reasonable and I find that the managers and directors acted professionally and with concern for both employees.  I do not make any adverse findings regarding the conduct of the employer; however, at the hearing of this dispute, I heard from Ms Powney that they have retained professional HR advice to review their health and safety policies and their policy on bullying and harassment.  I understand that the HR consultancy will provide training for managers regarding how to deal with complaints of bullying.  Ms Powney also confirmed that the organisation is a member of the National Youth Council of Ireland which sets national best practices for youth centres.  In line with his request in his submission, the worker was given a reference reflecting his commitment to his role when he was employed in the organisation.

I have concluded that the worker was treated professionally and reasonably in the manner in which his complaint about his colleague was investigated.  As the worker has resigned, and, as he has declined an investigation into his grievance by an independent person, I recommend that both parties now treat this dispute as closed.

Workplace dispute, grievance, procedures, mediation