Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Former Civil Servant

A Government Department

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 - 00005637

11/11/2025

The Worker alleged bullying by their Principal Officer in 2023, but after mediation and a formal investigation by an external investigator, the claims were not upheld. They further stated that an attempted appeal was not meaningfully conducted.

Following FOI requests indicating that most similar cases were decided against employees, the Worker concluded that the investigative process lacks independence and fairness and called for further scrutiny.

In 2023, the Worker was employed in a particular division of the Employer at HEO level. During this time, they believed their Principal Officer behaved in a manner that constituted bullying, leading them to file a formal complaint. The matter proceeded to full mediation but concluded without resolution.

Subsequently, the case was referred to an external investigation service. The Worker submitted 15 separate allegations of bullying. In January 2024, the investigation concluded that no bullying had occurred under the Dignity at Work policy framework.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Worker sought to exercise their right to appeal under the relevant agreement. This request was initially denied multiple times by the Head of HR but was eventually accepted after the Worker highlighted the applicable clause permitting an appeal.

The appeal process, which was intended to involve an independent review of the evidence and the reasonableness of the original findings, did not occur in the manner expected. Although an external civil servant was formally appointed, the Worker stated that no substantive review of their evidence took place. Instead, the appointed reviewer issued a statement endorsing the original findings without further examination.

This experience led the Worker to question the impartiality and effectiveness of the investigative process. They subsequently submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to multiple government departments that had used the external investigation service. The responses received indicated that, in a significant majority of cases, findings were made against the staff member raising the complaint. Based on available data and assumptions about incomplete responses, the Worker estimated that the proportion of cases resolved in favour of employees may be very low.

As a result, the Worker formed the view that the investigative system lacks fairness and effectiveness, and they expressed concern that other workers raising complaints may not receive adequate or impartial consideration. They believe the matter warrants further independent scrutiny and stated that they possess supporting email evidence related to their case.

The Employer stated that the WRC could not investigate the dispute because the Worker retired from their employment on 31 August 2024 and referred this dispute to the WRC on 11 November 2025. This was 14 months and 11 days after the date of their retirement. 

It was not disputed that the Worker retired from their employment on 31 August 2024 and referred the dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 November 2025, a period of approximately 14 months and 11 days after the cessation of their employment.

Section 26A for the Industrial Relations Act 1990 provides (in part) as follows, under the heading “Time limit in relation to trade dispute where retired worker is party to dispute”.

“26A. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other enactment, but subject to subsection (2), an adjudication officer or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker who has ceased to be employed by reason of his or her retirement is a party unless— (a) the dispute was referred to the Commission for conciliation within a period of 6 months from the date on which the worker’s employment ceased, or the date on which the event to which the dispute relates occurred, whichever is the earlier, or (b) the dispute was referred to an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, the Court within the period referred to in paragraph (a). (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, the Court may extend the period referred to in that subsection by a further period not exceeding 6 months where the adjudication officer or the Court is satisfied that the failure to refer the dispute within the period referred to in subsection (1) was due to reasonable cause. ….”

As set out above, Section 26A of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 clearly provides that a dispute involving a retired worker must be referred within six months of the date of retirement (or the relevant event), subject only to a discretion to extend that period by a further six months where reasonable cause for the delay is established.

In the present case, the referral was made outside the maximum permissible period of 12 months, and no jurisdiction exists to extend time beyond that statutory limit.

Accordingly, I am precluded from investigating the dispute.