Complaint upheld where employer failed to adequately address bullying concerns raised during employment, with €3,000 compensation recommended.

The Complainant contended that she had been bullied, harassed and inadequately supported in the workplace before resigning in February 2025. She said that she had sought supervisor training during a period of understaffing but had instead been overworked, criticised and denied meaningful progression. Her main concerns related to a supervisor whom she said was lazy, dismissive, disrespectful and physically intimidating. She stated that she had repeatedly raised concerns verbally and by text with her line manager, believing those matters had been escalated to the District Manager. She claimed that she had been discouraged from making a formal harassment complaint because it would reflect badly on her prospects of promotion. Following an altercation in November 2024, she received a warning, while the supervisor remained in post. She said she felt unsafe, unsupported and dejected, and ultimately resigned because her concerns had not been properly addressed.

The Respondent denied the claim and submitted that the Complainant had failed to use or exhaust the internal grievance procedure while employed. It accepted that an incident had occurred between the Complainant and her supervisor in November 2024, but stated that the store manager had reviewed CCTV, engaged with both individuals and issued appropriate warnings. The Respondent said the Complainant resigned voluntarily in January 2025, giving no indication in her resignation letter that she was leaving due to bullying, harassment or unresolved grievances. The Respondent stated that the first formal notification of her wider complaints came after her employment had ended and after her WRC complaint had been submitted. It argued that the WRC should not be the first forum for workplace grievances where internal procedures had not been used. Nonetheless, once senior management became aware of the complaints, an independent investigation was carried out, the complaint was partially upheld, and recommendations were implemented.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant had made genuine efforts to raise her concerns while still employed. Although the Respondent argued that she had not formally invoked the grievance procedure, the Adjudicator accepted that she had raised matters with her line manager and reasonably believed they had been escalated to the District Manager. The Adjudicator also accepted that she had been actively discouraged by local management from submitting a written complaint, which undermined the Respondent’s argument that she had failed to use the procedure. The Adjudicator concluded that local management had failed to take adequate steps to address her concerns while she remained in employment. However, the Adjudicator also acknowledged that, once senior management became aware of the complaint after her resignation, the Respondent conducted a thorough investigation, partially upheld the complaint and introduced recommendations to address wider workplace issues. The Complainant’s complaint was upheld and compensation of €3,000 was recommended.

Employers should:

• Ensure that managers understand their obligation to escalate workplace complaints, even where an employee raises concerns informally. If an employee reports bullying, harassment, intimidation or safety concerns, managers should not treat the matter as a mere personality clash without first assessing whether formal intervention is required. Informal resolution can be appropriate, but only where the employee is not discouraged from using formal procedures.

•  Ensure that grievance and dignity-at-work procedures are clearly accessible, explained during induction and reinforced through manager training. It is not enough for policies to be available in a handbook or office if employees do not understand how to use them. Managers should never tell employees that raising a complaint will harm promotion prospects, as this may undermine trust and expose the organisation to liability.

• Post-resignation, employers should still investigate where possible, particularly where they reveal potential systemic issues. However, post-employment investigations cannot fully cure failures by local management during employment.   
  

The full case can be found here.