A previous officer in a software company has made allegations against the business of indirect termination due to its inappropriate management of her bullying claim. This stemmed from a harsh and overly confrontational explosion from the firm’s CEO that distressed her so much she was physically ill on her journey home from work.
A case was opened under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, where Leonie Sheils’ legal representation stated that there was no appeals process after an outer human resources consultant dismissed a grievance against Symetri Ltd, which involved its executive, Cormac Lyons. Ms Sheils confessed feeling insignificant and unfairly treated to the Workplace Relations Commission, particularly because those in power denied the incident ever occurred.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs hold that Ms Sheils failed to take proper steps by not filing a formal appeal before her resignation in November 2022 and therefore left the company without a clear route to rectify the situation.
Ms Sheils recollected that the CEO aggressively burst out at her and two other female staff on Friday, 8th July 2022. She ended up in the ladies with tears streaming down her face, shaking uncontrollably. Having been locked out of the workplace that morning, Mr Lyons arrived, extremely irate and furiously aggressive to unlock the building for them, demanding they answer why they didn’t possess keys.
Hearing a phone conversation Mr Lyons had with a manager regarding the office keys, Ms Sheils casually commented that their team members weren’t interested in carrying keys. Upon hearing this, Mr Lyons questioned her intensely at her desk about her responsibility to possess keys. Although she countered by stating she had previously asked for keys and was assured entry would be assured by others, the whole incident left her extremely unsettled.
She recalled Mr Lyons subsequently exiting his office and having her carry out a work task, after which her colleagues enquired about her wellbeing. Overwhelmed by the entire situation, she locked herself in the bathroom, crying, shaking and wishing she could flee home.
Upon her departure from the office, she was so overwhelmed that she had to momentarily halt on the motorway as she felt unwell. Due to the absence of her co-workers the following week, she found herself as the principal member of her team, forcing her to interact with Cormac Lyons. She recounted experiencing a major anxiety attack on the following Monday.
Subsequently, she lodged an official complaint with Johan Lundqvist, a high-ranking HR officer based in Sweden. Challenged about her early departure before officially appealing the investigation result, Ms. Sheils stated that her intention was to avoid violating the company handbook rules of involving a person previously engaged in her complaint’s probe. She pointed out that the directive given to her was that appeals should be directed “to the management” which she found to be exceedingly ambiguous.
In his testimony, Mr. Lyons mentioned that the company’s handbook had distinctly outlined the process of an appeal. He said that a fair procedure would have been followed, should they have received a formal appeal, potentially outsourcing it again.
Ray Ryan, the independent investigator and human resources consultant, was queried by Mr. McGrath as to why he didn’t interact with Ms. D during his investigation process. His decision was based on his evaluation that once he had looked into all of Ms. Sheils’ grievances, he felt that her allegations lacked credibility, given his experience and judgement as an investigator. He added that he had concluded the accusation of bullying raised by Ms. Sheils lacked substantial evidence.
Following the closure of the hearing by the adjudicator, Mr. McGrath, an official written decision will be communicated to all parties involved at a later date.