Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

Representatives

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 - 00003991

21/03/2025

The Worker has been employed as a General Operative with the Employer since 6 June 2007. He stated that he was physically assaulted in the workplace on 7 January 2025 and that the Employer failed to properly investigate the matter.

The Worker reported that he was physically assaulted while at work on 7 January 2025, an incident that left him both physically and emotionally affected.

Despite the serious nature of the assault, the Employer failed in its duty of care by not taking immediate and appropriate action. There was a significant delay in addressing the matter, as the Employer did not initiate a thorough investigation into the incident in a timely manner.

This lack of urgency not only compromised the Worker’s safety and well-being but also undermined the seriousness with which workplace safety and employee welfare should be handled. By neglecting their responsibility to ensure a safe work environment, the employer allowed the situation to persist without any meaningful resolution or preventive measures being put in place, leaving the Worker exposed to further harm.

The Employer disputed the Worker’s claims, asserting that the matter was thoroughly investigated in accordance with company procedures. According to the employer, the investigation was conducted with due diligence, and all necessary steps were taken to ensure a comprehensive review of the incident and that the Worker was communicated with throughout.

The Employer maintained that the investigation was completed within a reasonable timeframe, specifically within three months, which they deemed appropriate given the complexity of the matter. The Employer further emphasised that all relevant facts were considered and that the investigation followed the established procedures to determine the full scope of the incident. In their view, the proper procedures were adhered to, and they were confident that the investigation was completed effectively and within an acceptable period, namely within three months of the complaint having been made.

It was also highlighted that the dispute was referred to the WRC on 21 March 2024, prior to the completion of the investigation.

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

I am satisfied firstly that the incident of 7 January 2025 was investigated by the Employer within a reasonable timeframe.

I also note that instead of raising a grievance under the Employer’s grievance procedure with how the Employer conducted the investigation, the Worker chose instead to refer the dispute to the WRC in the first instance.

It has been well established both in the WRC and the Labour Court that a Worker must exhaust an Employer’s grievance procedure in the first instance prior to the referring a dispute to the WRC.

Given that the Worker chose not do so in this case however, I have no role in the matter.