An employee who resigned after unresolved bullying concerns received limited compensation as procedural shortcomings were identified, but her resignation was not considered wholly attributable to the employer.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2012. In 2024, she raised a complaint concerning bullying and harassment by a colleague. She submitted that no meaningful follow-up occurred and that the matter did not progress beyond the initial stage of the grievance procedure. The Complainant stated that she wished for the complaint to be investigated but felt that the employer preferred to allow the issue to lapse. In April 2025, the Complainant raised the issue again and was advised to address the matter directly with the colleague concerned. This resulted in a verbal altercation between the two employees. The following day, the colleague went on sick leave. The Complainant stated that she was informed the colleague had submitted a resignation, though this had not been accepted. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant herself resigned, stating that she could no longer continue in the workplace. While the employer attempted to engage with the matter after her resignation, the Complainant maintained that this occurred too late. She sought a recommendation acknowledging procedural failures and compensation of €10,000.

The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant had been employed since 2012. It was submitted that a request to address workplace concerns was received in November 2024, but shortly afterwards the Complainant advised that she did not wish to proceed and asked that no further action be taken. The Respondent maintained that, as a result, the matter did not advance at that time. The Respondent accepted that an incident occurred in May 2025 and stated that an interim arrangement was offered, whereby the Complainant could work from home, consistent with previous arrangements. This was proposed as a temporary measure while matters were being examined, as the other employee held a front-facing role and could not work remotely. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant resigned of her own accord and worked out her notice period. It was stated that discussions continued, but the Complainant was not willing to reconsider her decision and confirmed that she intended to commence alternative employment shortly thereafter. The Respondent contended that it was denied an opportunity to fully address the complaint and opposed any recommendation for compensation.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant resigned following a verbal altercation with a colleague, which she attributed to unresolved bullying and harassment concerns. The Complainant believed that previous attempts to engage the employer had been ineffective and that she could no longer continue working in the environment. The employer maintained that the 2024 complaint had been withdrawn and that the measures proposed in 2025 were intended as interim solutions pending further examination. The Adjudication Officer was not satisfied that the employer had a properly functioning bullying and harassment procedure in place, noting deficiencies in structure, clarity, and follow-through. However, the Adjudication Officer was also not satisfied that the Complainant had exhausted all reasonable steps prior to resigning. In particular, the absence of a clear, written complaint immediately prior to resignation was noted. Accordingly, while shortcomings in the employer’s procedures were identified, the resignation was not found to be wholly attributable to the employer’s conduct. They recommended that the employer pays the complainant compensation equivalent to two weeks gross wages, that is €1,260 in respect of the lack of a functioning bullying and harassment procedure.

Employers should:

• Ensure that they have a clear, robust, and well-communicated bullying and harassment procedure in place. Such procedures should include defined stages, clear timelines, designated decision-makers, and documented outcomes. Importantly, policies must be operational in practice and not merely exist on paper.     
   
  
• Encourage concerns to be set out in writing and should confirm, in writing, how a complaint will be addressed. Even where an employee appears to withdraw a complaint, employers should exercise caution and consider whether underlying issues remain unresolved.  
   
  
• Act promptly and decisively when workplace conflict arises. Delayed or reactive engagement, particularly after an employee has resigned, is unlikely to remedy procedural failures.  
  

The full case can be found here.