Employer Resources Newsletter - August 2025

Workplace investigations are a crucial aspect of managing employee relations and ensuring compliance with Irish employment law. However, despite good intentions, many organisations fall short in conducting fair and robust investigations. 

Mistakes in the investigative process can have serious legal and reputational consequences, particularly if the process is later scrutinised by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) or the Labour Court. Organisations in the nonprofit sector should ensure the application of procedural correctness and natural justice in order to mitigate the financial liabilities that stem from third party complaints. 

Below we examine some of the most common mistakes organisations make during internal workplace investigations and how to avoid them.

1. Lack of Pre-Investigation Planning

Effective investigations require a structured approach from the outset, including identifying the scope, roles required, relevant documentation, and timelines. Without planning, investigations can quickly become unfocused or derail entirely.

A well-prepared investigator will ensure the issues under review are clearly understood, the appropriate individuals are interviewed, and the investigation runs in line with the schedule set out at the beginning of the process.

2. Omission or Poor Drafting of Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference set out the purpose, scope, and parameters of the investigation. The omission of, or poorly drafted Terms of Reference can lead to confusion, or allegations of bias. A clear Terms of Reference document ensures all parties understand what is being investigated, the roles of the individuals involved, and what the investigation will (and will not) cover. Is the investigation gathering information or establishing facts for example. The Terms of Reference should also outline the standard of proof being applied which is typically the standard of "balance of probabilities” and define the timeline for the process.

3. Combining the Investigation and Disciplinary Steps

A common procedural misstep is the conflation of the investigation and disciplinary processes. This undermines procedural fairness and the principle of separation between fact-finding and decision-making stages. The investigator’s role is to gather facts and establish whether there is a case to answer not to make disciplinary recommendations or impose sanctions. Organisations must ensure clear delineation between the investigation and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings, with different personnel handling each phase.

4. Relying on Untested Information and Ignoring Discrepancies

Investigators sometimes rely too heavily on written complaints or uncorroborated accounts without thorough testing or follow-up. Fair procedures require that all relevant parties be given the opportunity to respond to allegations and evidence. Ignoring inconsistencies or failing to probe discrepancies in statements can lead to findings that lack credibility and expose the process to a subsequent legal challenge. Investigators must evaluate the reliability of the information they receive and document how they assessed conflicting evidence.

5. Failing to Ensure an Independent and Non-Biased Process

Even if an investigator believes they are impartial, any actual or perceived bias can undermine the credibility of the process. This includes appointing someone who has prior involvement in the matter or a close working relationship with any party. To ensure an appropriate standard of fairness, organisations should carefully consider the neutrality of the investigator, or, where appropriate, engage an external party to ensure independence and objectivity.

6. Delay in Undertaking the Investigation

Unnecessary delays in commencing or completing a workplace investigation can be detrimental to all parties involved. It can lead to faded memories, loss of evidence, and increased workplace tension. Moreover, prolonged investigations can be interpreted by the WRC or Labour Court as a failure in the employer’s duty to act fairly and promptly. Timeliness should be balanced with thoroughness, and clear communication should be maintained throughout to manage expectations and reduce anxiety for those involved.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

These errors often stem from a lack of training or experience on the part of internal investigators. Unfortunately, the impact is usually not evident until the process is challenged before the WRC or Labour Court, where any procedural flaws are examined in detail.

A flawed investigation can render dismissals unfair, result in reputational harm, and expose the organisation to significant compensation awards. In some cases, it can also lead to findings of constructive dismissal if the process is found to have been so unreasonable that the employee's position became untenable.

Conclusion

Internal investigations play a key role in effective workplace management and legal compliance. Organisations must ensure that those conducting them are adequately trained, supported, and resourced to carry out their duties fairly and competently. By avoiding the common pitfalls outlined above and committing to procedural fairness, employers can mitigate risk, foster trust in their processes, and promote a positive workplace culture and employee relations.

Adare is a team of expert-led Employment Law, Industrial Relations and best practice Human Resource Management consultants. If your business needs advice, support, or guidance about compliance requirements or any HR issues, please contact Adare by calling (01) 561 3594 or emailing info@adarehrm.ie to learn what services are available to support your business. 

Dublin Office: (01) 561 3594 | Cork Office: (021) 486 1420 | Shannon Office: (061) 363 805 

info@adarehrm.ie | www.adarehrm.ie  

Lengthy Investigation into Bullying Complaint Leads to €25,000 Discrimination Ruling

Background:

The complainant began work with the respondent in 2019. The complainant alleged that he was subjected to bullying and harassment by his supervisor leading him to suffer stress and anxiety. The complainant made the respondent aware of his mental health difficulties and claimed that there was a failure to reasonably accommodate his symptoms as required under the Employment Equality Act.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant was subjected to bullying and harassment by his manager in the workplace. On raising an internal complaint, it was ultimately referred to an external investigator. Some nineteen months after the formal complaint was made, the investigator delivered a report, upholding the complainant’s claims. Following on from that, the complainant waited for several months to find out if any action would be taken against the manager who had been the subject of the report. The complainant suffered from stress and anxiety during this period. His condition amounted to a disability under the Employment Equality Act. The complainant was never given information regarding actions to be taken on foot of the investigation, continued to meet the person who was the subject of the complaint and continued to suffer mental health symptoms. The complainant concluded that no reasonable accommodation measures were taken by the respondent despite being on notice of the complainant’s condition and being in receipt of the investigator’s report.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent confirmed that the working relationship between the complainant and his former supervisor had broken down. In response to the grievance, the complainant was moved to a different role and no longer reported to the person complained of since May 2022. The person complained of had been absent from work since June 2021 and the complainant was “acting up” in his role until that employee returned to the workplace in February 2022. Additionally, after the initial informal investigation and to try to restore positive working relationships between all parties concerned, the respondent offered to mediate the dispute however this was rejected by the complainant. A formal investigation was then put in place in March 2022 which concluded in January 2023.  A final decision issued to the complainant in November 2023.  The respondent argued that it received no application for reasonable accommodation nor any complaint of bullying or harassment since the complainant made the original complaint in March 2021.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complaint was that the respondent treated the complainant unlawfully by discriminating against him in failing to provide ‘reasonable accommodation’ for a disability.

The complainant lodged a written grievance with the respondent in March 2021. This grievance contained nine complaints. The grievance was given to a senior employee with the respondent for investigation. The investigation was completed by in June 2021, and a copy of the proposed outcome was issued to the complainant. The adjudicator noted that the third paragraph of a letter sent to the complainant recommended mediation with the proviso that there was no obligation on either party to agree to a mediation process.

The complainant informed the respondent that he did not want to mediate the issue and wanted the matter to be fully investigated. The respondent appointed an independent investigator in March 2022, some seven and a half months after the complainant’s request.

In September 2022, the external investigator held a follow up meeting with the complainant. The final investigation report was sent to the respondent’s HR division in January 2023 noting that the investigator upheld the complaint.

In February 2023, the Senior Executive Officer in HR was appointed to review the report.

In July 2023, the investigation report was re-assigned to another independent senior employee who issued his decision to HR in October 2023.

In November 2023, the respondent issued a letter to the complainant and his solicitor confirming that the recommendations of the independent senior employee were being implemented and that the matter was considered closed.

The total duration of the investigation was two years and eight months which was far too long in the adjudicator’s opinion.

The complainant was seeking reasonable accommodation for a disability caused by the treatment he was receiving from his manager. Such reasonable accommodation could have been something as simple as separating the complainant from his manager by re-assigning him to work elsewhere. This option was never explored.

The respondent was on notice of the fact that the complainant was suffering from mental health symptoms arising out of the stressful work situation. The respondent had received a letter from the complainant’s General Practitioner in May 2023 confirming the impact on his health which was echoed in a letter from the complainant’s solicitor in June 2023. There was no effort or no adequate effort made to reasonably accommodate the complainant in the workplace. The complainant was simply told that the investigation had concluded.

In coming to a conclusion, the adjudicator ruled that the complaint was well founded on the basis that the protracted management of the complainant’s grievance into a serious bullying complaint and the concomitant failure to provide reasonable accommodations amounted to a breach of the respondent’s duties under the Employment Equality Act.

Decision:

The discrimination claim was well-founded, and the adjudicator ordered the respondent to pay the complainant €25,000 in compensation.

Recommendations for Employers

In this case, the complainant alleged that he was subjected to bullying and harassment by his manager in the workplace. On raising an internal complaint, it was two years and eight months before the recommendations arising from the investigation were provided to the complainant.

During the protracted investigation, the complainant developed stress and anxiety and sought reasonable accommodation for the mental health symptoms caused by the treatment he was receiving from his manager.

As the respondent was on notice of the fact that the complainant was suffering from health complaints arising out of the work situation and made no effort to reasonably accommodate the employee, the adjudicator concluded that the respondent had failed to comply with their obligations under the Employment Equality Act and awarded €25,000 in compensation.

Organisations should note that the adjudicator was particularly critical of the duration it took the respondent to conclude the investigation and ensure that workplace investigations and any associated procedures are concluded in good time.        

The Growing Importance of HR Strategy

In an evolving employment landscape, developing an effective HR strategy has become essential for success. While compliance has always been a major focus for HR activity, tight labour market conditions, particularly in the nonprofit sector have recently emphasised the importance of HR strategy to overall organisational goals. Employers that adopt a more strategic approach to increasing employee engagement and retention are now better positioned to drive continued success in the persistent tight labour market conditions.

Why HR Strategy Matters

The perennial challenge for HR teams remains demonstrating to senior executives how employee policies and procedures add value to an organisation. By incorporating strategic HR goals into the organisation’s objectives, HR aligns its activities with the overall goals, mission and purpose and this approach in turn leads to employees who are more engaged, managers who deliver better results, and better overall organisational performance. A HR strategy enables organisations to develop an engaged and committed workforce, or to develop a career pathway that produces high-performing employees for example. These components can separate an organisations value proposition and also tend to be very difficult to imitate which means they have the potential to be a real source of competitive advantage. 

Planning to Implementation

An effective HR strategy is forward-thinking, data-driven, and focused on creating value through the optimal use of employee skills and capabilities.

The foundation of any HR strategy is its alignment with the organisation's mission, vision, and strategic objectives. This ensures that all HR activities support the broader organisational goals. Consideration of the overall goals is particularly important in the planning and development stage of a HR strategy.

Once a HR strategy has been developed, it needs to be implemented. This involves a combination of communication and measurement initiatives to first launch and then monitor the progress of strategic objectives and commitments. 

HR Strategy’s Role in Navigating Tight Labour Market Conditions

With persistent tight labour market conditions and shifting employee priorities around flexible and remote working options, some strategic HR imperatives for organisations in the nonprofit sector include developing progressive retention and engagement strategies, that are sustained through the employee lifecycle from onboarding to offboarding.

The competitive labour market also requires a different and more tactical approach to addressing strategic HR priorities. This shift involves moving beyond reactive measures and developing initiatives that promote better talent management. In addition, ongoing digitisation, reskilling, and learning and development are having a transformative impact on the workforce. Recent analysis by the IMF indicating that nearly 40% of global employment could be influenced by AI. This underscores the critical importance of developing HR strategies that focus on true employee engagement and developing work environments that include continuous learning and development programmes aimed at reskilling employees to equip them for working in a digitised environment.

In summary, HR strategy is about making HR a more central component in driving organisational success. By aligning HR initiatives with overall organisational goals, management stand a better chance of increasing employee engagement and fostering a positive and productive workplace culture that leads to sustained success.

Gain Insights into How Your Organisation Compares?

Adare are conducting their bi-annual HR Barometer survey and want to hear from you. The Adare survey analyses the impacts, challenge, and opportunities within HR and Employment Law in Ireland, including detailed research on HR metrics, Learning & Development, Retirement & Pensions, Diversity & Inclusion, Performance Management, Pay, Working Practices, and HR priorities in 2025.

By participating in the Adare survey, you will receive free access to expert analysis of these critical areas, empowering you to benchmark your practices against those of other organisations. 

Take Survey