LCR23214

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047407 (CA-00058286-001, SC-00001671).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 11 December 2024

in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 January 2026.

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by a Worker of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in relation to a complaint about a workplace investigation conducted by his former Employer. The Worker was seconded to work with that Employer at the time of the dispute. He is now retired. The appeal is a duplicate appeal to LCR23215.

The Worker was the subject of an allegation of harassment/sexual harassment by a colleague.  The Worker is dissatisfied with the way the employer conducted the investigation into that complaint. 

At the hearing the Worker concisely summarised his issues with the investigation process as follows: -

• (i) The colleague who made the complaint against him made defamatory allegations relating to a third party. The employer compounded the damage caused to him by allowing those defamatory comments to be seen by the external investigator. Defamatory allegations were referenced in the final draft report despite the Worker being informed this was not part of the complaint.
• (ii) The Terms of Reference provided to the Worker at the outset of the process were changed three months later by the Independent Investigator, which was prejudicial to the Worker.
• (iii) The investigation outcome was that the Worker had no case to answer in relation to the complaint of sexual harassment, yet he was subjected to a disciplinary process because of self-incriminating remarks he made during the process. Had the Worker known that the terms of reference were to change, he would not have been so candid during the process.

In reply the Employers set out its position as follows: - 

• (i) The colleague who made a complaint against the Worker raised third party allegations as part of her initial complaint. Those allegations were not investigated as part of the independent investigation process.
• (ii) A standard term of reference template was used by HR when processing the initial complaint. As is common practice, the terms of reference were amended by the independent investigator at the outset of the formal investigation process. The amended terms were shared with the worker.
• (iii) The investigation process was conducted fairly and in line with established and nationally agreed policies.

The Court was provided with extensive written submissions from both parties. At the hearing both parties gave a helpful summary of the issues in contention, and the Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made at the hearing.

The Employer contends that the Worker made a thoroughly inappropriate comment to a staff member and that he was subject to a full and fair investigation and disciplinary process.

For his part, the Worker does not take issue with the policies in his former employment, which he accepts are well-established and nationally agreed.  He does not assert that the Employer failed to adhere to the policy or that it deviated in its application of procedures in his case. However, the Worker strenuously objects to the way the investigation was conducted. He holds a genuinely held belief that the investigation process lacked integrity and was unfair. He contends that the employer precipitated an overly complicated execution of procedures which caused him undue stress and anxiety, and which inhibited his ability to freely engage with colleagues. He feels that he was prejudiced by the revised terms of reference and is unhappy about obiter comments contained in the final report. 

The Worker wants an acknowledgement of his concerns and of his treatment during the process.  In reply to questions from the Court, the Worker confirmed that he was given an opportunity to input into the revised terms of reference.  He acknowledged that the report was likely to have produced the same outcome, regardless of the self-incriminating comments that he made during the process.

The role of the Court when investigating industrial relations disputes is to hear the parties and set out its opinion in the form of a recommendation that can assist the parties bring a resolution to matters in dispute.  It is not the function of the Court to insert itself as a decision maker into the midst of internal investigations. Having regard to the oral and written submissions made, the Court does not identify any major breaches or flaws with the processes used.

The Worker in this case is no longer in the employment of the Employer.  Having regard to the effluxion of time since these matters were first raised, the Court considers that it is in the interests of all parties involved to put this matter behind them.

Noting all the above, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
26 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.