Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Head Barista

A Café

Representatives

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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 - 00004163

22/04/2025

The Worker was employed as Head Barista by the Employer from 26 September 2023 until his resignation on 11 April 2025. He stated that he was bullied and treated unprofessionally during his employment.

The Worker’s dispute centres on allegations of bullying and unprofessional treatment, particularly by his line manager.

From November 2024, the Worker stated that his line manager began acting aggressively, frequently shouting at him in front of staff and customers. Despite requests to address any issues privately, the Worker alleged that public reprimands continued, causing humiliation. A specific incident on 1 April 2025 was cited, where his line manager allegedly shouted at him again, and dismissed the Worker’s concerns with a remark implying communication was impossible.

The Worker also described being singled out over uniform standards. On one occasion, after arriving late due to a delayed bus and without internet access, the Worker was told to go home and iron his shirt. He claims other staff were not held to the same standard, suggesting inconsistent treatment.

The Worker stated that he was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 10 April 2025 regarding chocolates he had set aside for a friend, intending to pay later. The Worker stated that this was common practice among staff and Head Office employees, and the chocolates were clearly labelled with his name. However, he was formally accused of misconduct. During the disciplinary meeting, the Worker stated that he felt dismissed and ridiculed, with limited opportunity to explain his actions.

On 11 April 2025, the Worker resigned due to the toxic environment. Later that day, he received a final written warning and notice of demotion, which he believes had been predetermined. The Worker highlighted his history of responsible till management and transparency, including voluntarily photographing till balances, to demonstrate his integrity.

The Employer disputed the Worker’s allegations that his line manager behaved aggressively and shouted at him publicly. Specifically, it was asserted that while his line manager had to address the Worker’s lack of engagement during shifts, he did so appropriately.

Secondly, the Employer accepted that the Worker was asked to return home to iron his shirt after arriving late and improperly dressed. The Employer also asserted however that the line manager had repeatedly addressed uniform concerns with the Worker, even lending him trousers on one occasion. These interactions were documented in the HR system. The Employer stated that the Worker had also been spoken to about his appearance multiple times and disputed that he was treated differently to other workers.

Thirdly, the Employer disputed that the Worker was unfairly treated during a disciplinary meeting regarding chocolates he had taken from the café and claimed he had paid for later. It was stated that records showed he was not present at work when he claimed to have made the payment. Despite being given opportunities to provide proof or repay the amount, he did neither. The Employer refuted his claim that delayed payment for stock was common practice, with staff statements supporting this.

Finally, the Employer disputed the Worker’s allegations of bullying and unprofessional treatment during his employment. The company found no evidence of such behaviour and noted that no formal complaints were made prior to his resignation. The Worker declined to appeal the disciplinary decision or pursue a grievance despite being informed of the process.

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

As the Worker accepted that he had never made the Employer aware of any difficulties or issues that he had with his line manager at any time during his period of employment, and, crucially, in my view, failed to at any stage invoke the grievance procedure in relation to the treatment that he stated he was subjected to, despite having been given the opportunity to pursue a grievance, I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to him.