ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00004958

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:              19/02/2026 and  23/04/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker was employed as a Client Support Worker for an organisation providing support to individuals undergoing difficulties.  The exact nature of the work is not referred to due to the confidential nature of the work and the parameters of the I.R. Act which decrees that hearings and recommendations do not identify individuals or organisations.   The Worker was employed from April 2024 to October 2025 when she resigned.  She was in dispute with her Employer following a meeting with her line manager and the essential elements of the dispute were referred to by both parties in the hearing.  The first hearing on 19/02/2026 was adjourned at the request of the Worker who said she wished to consult with legal counsel and have more time to prepare.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker gave a written and oral submission summarised as follows:

The Worker was employed as Client Support Worker. 

She stated that she was considerably impacted by what she was experiencing as extreme bullying and harassment Managers in the Organisation and she felt that she was at the receiving end of an ongoing and escalating  ‘campaign’ against her.

She outlined that during a line management session on 26th February 2025 her mental health, emotional health and job performance were questioned.

She referred to the fact that she was told that the work of the client support worker was measured on the number of referrals to the organisation and other things and that “there have been many other episodes of bullying”.

She said the latest episode that led to this complaint began on 23rd May 2025, during an 11.30am combined case management/supervision/counselling session with Ms OS, during which she was updating her on the details of one of her clients and she became agitated and angry.

She stated that she tried to get help from the CEO but he did not reply to her pleas of help, and he also has prevented her from claiming all of her expenses.

The CEO passed on her issues to another Manager, whom the Worker says threatened her with ‘disciplinary procedures’. He stopped her from taking time off, he also cc’d her Manager in emails. 

She stated that she wished to lodge a complaint against the CEO.

She said she worked extra hours which she was co-erced into working and she built up considerable toil, company policy is that toil is taken swiftly. Management would not allow her to take her toil, they also would not approve her annual leave.  Her partner’s  father died Christmas Day 2024. Management refused her annual leave. 

She pointed out the Organisation’s system which she said has been highly problematic from the start and that she and others have stated this numerous times, it has been the topic of numerous internal meetings also. It is still highly problematic. 

She outlined problems she had with a training course which she went to the trouble of attending in the South East and booked in to a hotel, only for the course to be cancelled at the last minute.

She outlined a success story regarding housing for a client.

She had to attend various events outside her region and was not approved for toil.

She outlined difficulties in a particular course she was undertaking.

She outlined the nature of emails from her Manager such as one seeking clarification on her out of office message.

In summary, she alleges bullying and harassment by members of management, including her line manager, the Operations Manager and the CEO.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Client Support Worker. She was initially assigned to the Dublin region in 2020. The Complainant subsequently resigned to take up a role with a different organisation in the North of the Country. In the intervening period, the Respondent was approved by Tusla to roll the programme out on a national basis. In doing so, roles became available in the North of the Country. The Complainant applied for one of these roles, was successful and was assigned to cover the North-Eastern Region. She subsequently resigned in October 2025.

The Respondent is a CLG and registered charity.

Facts and Case chronology

On 8th April 2024, the Complainant re-commenced her employment with the Respondent on a permanent full-time basis as a Client Support Worker.

The Complainant was paid a gross annual salary of €37,300, as well as significant travel expenses as much of the time in the role was spent travelling from location to location.

The Complainant worked at the direction of, and in collaboration with, the Client Support Manager.

The Complainant’s duties were outlined, including inter alia:

Advocacy, Information, Maintaining client files and documenting calls, incidents and observations and attending meetings, supervision and training and ensuring safeguarding measures.

23.05.2025 – An online meeting was scheduled between the Complainant with Ms OS, (her Manager) where relations start to unravel. The meeting was a regular monthly pre-arranged support and supervisor session, followed by monthly case management meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss work related issues and discuss with both management and staff member present. It is also an opportunity to review cases assigned to that staff member to ensure best practice and safeguarding procedures are followed. An agenda was shared with the Complainant prior to the meeting setting out twelve items for discussion. Ms OS says that the first part of the online meeting was dedicated to Case Management where she and the Complainant discussed three clients assigned to the Complainant. It had been noted that the Complainant had failed to follow a number of the safeguarding measures put in place to protect Support Workers such as her. One such example was the requirement to refer clients for risk assessment to be carried out by the line manager or other line manager prior to initiating programme work with clients.

Ms OS said to the Complainant that, as far as she could see, there were no client notes on the system for three particular clients. She said that she explained to the Complainant the importance of the client notes including the GDPR requirement that these are on the system and not in hard copy format. She said that she also addressed with the Complainant the absence of a risk assessment on the system for a client that the Complainant had on her books for seven months.

During the course of the meeting, Ms OS mistakenly told the Complainant she may have to give her a written warning.  She thought the Complainant had a verbal warning which she did not.  The meeting ended in a very heated way with the Complainant telling Ms OS that she did not want to deal with her ever again.

The Complainant discussed her issues with another Manager Mr B and he thought that at the end of the discussion, the Complainant seemed calmer and happier in her work and in the absence of the CEO who was on leave, the matter had largely been dealt with.

Ms OS sent to Operations Manager Mr D a list of the concerns that she had raised with the Complainant in the days thereafter. Due to the counter allegations made by both parties – both saying that the other behaved inappropriately in the meeting, Mr D (Operations Manager) sent an email to the Complainant requesting answers to specific questions raised by Ms OS.

The CEO returned from his leave on the 3rd of June. He spoke to Mr D who explained that Ms OS had been trying to have a conversation with the Complainant about performance at the time. Mr D advised the CEO that despite the differences in views about what happened at the meeting itself and what was and was not on her record, the Respondent did still need answers to the questions that Ms OS put to the Complainant as some of these matters related to safeguarding and were of the utmost importance. Mr D also felt at this point, due to the manner in which the meeting ended, he was also unsure as to what work the Complainant had and had not completed. Up to this point, the Complainant had refused to engage with either Mr D or Ms OS. Ms OS had also contacted the CEO about the Complainant’s lack of engagement and the manner in which she was discussing same with her colleagues.

The CEO subsequently called the Complainant on the 3rd of June, and they discussed three significant points on that call:

• That the queries regarding the work that had been put to her by Ms OS and subsequently Mr D, needed to be replied to.
• He asked her in light of what she said in the call about Ms OS’s alleged behaviour, did she want to or was she already, making a formal complaint? The Complainant said, “If I was making a formal complaint, I would have written it in big capital letters across the subject line of an email.” Which for the record, she had not done.
• He also asked the Complainant if she was willing to engage in a restorative practice for example mediation. She said yes. He told the Complainant that it would require both parties to engage. It subsequently turned out that Ms OS did not want to take part in that process. This decision was made on foot on continued discussion between the Complainant and colleagues about what Ms OS had called “hurtful and unprofessional comments” made about her to colleagues.

The incident occurred on 23rd May 2025. Ms OS went on annual leave in early June 2025. The Complainant went on annual leave from 2nd June to 14th July 2025, using a combination of annual leave and TOIL. She returned for a period from mid to late July 2025. The Complainant again took annual leave from 4th August until 1st September 2025.

While the Complainant was away, the CEO contacted an investigator on 29th July 2025. That investigator was hired on 30th July 2025. It should be noted, that at this point, the Respondent did not have a formal complaint on record from the Complainant. The CEO felt it was important to have the investigation carried out due to the number of allegations that the Complainant was making, and he felt as though all involved, including him, deserved a right of reply. It would subsequently transpire that the Complainant refused to take part in any investigation, and as a result, all that could be investigated was the meeting on 23rd May 2025 between the Complainant and Ms OS.

On 31st July and 1st August 2025, the Complainant sent an email saying she is experiencing symptoms of PTSD. This email is sent against a backdrop of the Complainant repeatedly requesting that Annual Leave and TOIL be granted. She also again tries to leverage the incident with Ms OS in May against the Respondent to have her annual leave and TOIL approved. By way of response, the CEO responded to the Complainant informing her that her leave had been granted and that they were still waiting for further detail from the Complainant as to how she wanted to proceed with the investigation into the May incident. The Respondent never received a response to this email, and the Complainant went on annual leave. At the point of going on annual leave in August, the Respondent still did not have a response to the queries raised by Ms OS in the May meeting either.

On 12th August 2025, the Complainant lodged an internal complaint against Mr D stating that she felt bullied by him because he continued to contact her about the still unanswered performance issues raised in the meeting by Ms OS in May. Over the period of 23rd May to 28th July, Mr D had contacted the Complainant nine times via email and text to respond to the concerns raised. Mr D had been tasked with this because the Complainant had made clear to both Mr D and the CEO that she would no longer be reporting to Ms OS. Mr D never received any response from the Complainant. The Complainant was informed in the final correspondence on 28th July 2025, that her continued failure to engage would result in escalating the matter to disciplinary action. It seems as though the Complainant instead of engaging, decided to initiate a complaint against Mr D – one which may have been considered retaliatory in nature.

On 13th August, the CEO acknowledged the Complainant’s complaint against Mr D. In light of this complaint now having been received, and no confirmation from the Complainant as to how she would like her initial complaints about Ms OS addressed, the CEO made the decision himself to initiate the investigation with the already hired investigator. The CEO agreed to add the Complainant’s complaint against Mr D to the remit of the investigation however, subsequently due to the lack of engagement from the Complainant, the complaint against Mr D could not be investigated.

When the CEO informed the Complainant that he had made the decision to appoint the investigator, instead of acknowledging the attempts of the Respondent, or apologising for her lack of interaction or clarity, the Complainant responded saying she does not trust the Respondent to address this complaint and is progressing to WRC.

The Complainant was due to return to work on 3rd September 2025. The investigator contacted the Complainant on 5th September 2025 and attempts to schedule to meet her to discuss her complaint and formally begin the investigation. At this moment in time, the investigation officer only had the emails issued by the Complainant and Ms OS on the day and no additional detailed complaint, or statements etc.

Following contact between the Complainant and the Investigator, ultimately the Complainant did not take part in the investigation.  In the circumstances, her complaint was not upheld.

The Complainant resigned in October 2025.

Summary and relevant law

In the case at hand, the Complainant alleges that she has been bullied by her direct line Manager who tried to raise performance related issues with her – issues which to date, still have not been addressed by the Complainant. The Complainant’s complete unwillingness to engage in any kind of constructive conversation in this regard made managing the Complainant and day to day interactions with the Complainant impossible.

It is widely agreed in employment law matters that your Employer engaging in and providing constructive feedback should not be considered bullying. In the case of Ruffley v. The Board of Management of St Anne’s School [2017] IESC 33 it was held by Charleton J.: “Correction and instruction are necessary in the functioning of any workplace, and these are required to avoid accidents and to ensure that productive work is engaged in. It may be necessary to point out faults. It may be necessary to bring home a point by requesting engagement in an unusual task or longer or unsocial hours. It is a kindness to attempt to instil a work ethic or to save a job or a career by an early intervention. Bullying is not about being tough on employees. Appropriate interventions may not be pleasant and must simply be taken in the right spirit.”

The Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in The Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 defines “workplace bullying”, in para. 5 to the Schedule, as follows:- “Workplace Bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying.”

The Complainant has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever, in her complaint to the WRC, her internal emails to various members of the Respondent’s staff, in the investigation (because she refused to take part) of any repeated inappropriate behaviour that could be reasonably regarded as undermining her right to dignity at work. The Complaint has pointed to one incident where she alleges that her line manager engaged in behaviour that may or may not constitute inappropriate. A single incident does not satisfy this requirement and furthermore, because of the Complainant’s repeated failures to engage with the Respondent regarding the performance matters raised, it is impossible to know if these queries raised had remit or not. She also repeatedly failed to tell her Employer whether she was making a formal complaint so they could initiate an investigation into the matter, despite the CEO having asked this question on multiple occasions. As repeatedly previously mentioned, the Complainant also had the benefit of engaging with the investigator – an independent party appointed by the Respondent to meet with the Complainant, but she chose not to do so.

The Respondent at all times, tried their best to work with the Complainant, however they consistently received push back, and often received no response whatsoever.

To date, the Complainant still has not provided a response to the issues raised in May 2025 by her line manager.

The Respondent respectfully requests that, in circumstances where the Complainant has made no effort whatsoever to work with the Respondent to resolve the issues, no recommendation be made in the Complainant’s favour.

Conclusions:

The genesis of this dispute lies in the altercation between the Worker and her Manager on 23rd May 2025 which escalated subsequently and involved claim and counter claim regarding behaviour at that meeting.  The Complainant subsequently claimed she was being bullied by the Operations Manager who repeatedly requested information from her on her work.

I note the requests in writing from the Operations Manager, with HR responsibilities regarding client documentation and system entries, expense claims, use of internal systems and attendance and availability.  These are requests for information which in some respects address important recording and safeguarding issues.  The Worker’s written contract of employment obliges her to hand over any documentation immediately on request. The requests by the Employer were never answered by the Worker.  I find the Employer was entitled to manage the performance of the employee and this, as pointed out in Ruffley v. The Board of Management of St Anne’s School does not constitute bullying.

The worker made many allegations against the employer regarding annual leave, toil and expenses but did not submit any breakdown of alleged losses.  Looking at the records produced by the employer, I do not see any shortfall or losses which could give rise to compensation.

I note the attempts by the Employer to have the Worker’s grievances investigated. She ultimately took no part in the investigation and resigned in October 2025. 

Recommendation:

In all of the circumstances, I make no recommendation in favour of the Worker in this case.

Dated:  15th of June 2026.  

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: