Worker says she quit job over handling of bullying probe

A former software company account executive who claimed an “angry and very aggressive” outburst from its CEO left her so upset she was “physically sick” on her way home from work has accused the firm of constructive dismissal over its handling of her bullying complaint.

In a case brought under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, Leonie Sheils has accused her former employer, software firm Symetri Ltd, of constructive dismissal – her solicitor arguing that there was “no procedure” for an appeal after an external HR consultant rejected a complaint which included allegations against its chief executive officer, Cormac Lyons.

“I felt very small. I felt I was down on my knees to people who were very firm in the outcome report that none of this happened. It just felt so unfair,” Ms Sheils told the Workplace Relations Commission at a hearing yesterday.

The claim is denied by the firm, with its representative arguing that by failing to lodge a formal appeal before she quit in November 2022, Ms Sheils gave the company “no course of action” and “absolutely no leeway”.

Ms Sheils said in evidence to the WRC yesterday that Symetri’s CEO, Cormac Lyons, shouted at her and two other female staff on Friday 8 July 2022, and that she was so upset she went to the bathroom “crying” and “shaking”.

She told the WRC she and other staff had found themselves locked out of the office that morning and that Mr Lyons had arrived in an “agitated, angry and very aggressive” state to unlock the building for them – asking the workers: “Why don’t you have keys?”

Ms Sheils said that after hearing Mr Lyons speaking to a manager by phone about keys to the office and demanding to know where they were, she remarked that the staff “didn’t want to have keys”.

She said that upon hearing this, Mr Lyons approached her at her desk and said “What did you say? Excuse me? Do you not agree it’s your responsibility to have keys?”

“I said I don’t agree, because I’d asked for keys in the past and was told there’d be someone there to let me in,” Ms Sheils said.

She said that after Mr Lyons emerged again from his office and had her perform a work task, her colleagued asked whether she was okay. “I went to the bathroom; I started crying, shaking; I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was upset most of the day – I just wanted to get in my car and go home,” she said.

When she did leave the office later that day, she said she had to pull over and was “physically sick” at the side of the motorway.

At work the following week, she added, she said that due to the absence of other colleagues, she was left as the main person on her team and “couldn’t avoid dealing with Cormac Lyons”. She told the tribunal she suffered a “full-on anxiety attack” the following Monday. The following day, she submitted a formal complaint to Johan Lundqvist, a senior group HR officer in Sweden, she added.

Questioned about why she quit prior to registering a formal appeal of the investigation outcome, Ms Sheils said she did not want to breach the terms of the company handbook by referring the matter to someone previously involved in the investigation of her complaint. She said the message given to her was that appeals were to be made “to management” and that she regarded this as “very vague”.

“There was one witness present for the whole thing, [Ms D], and her statement was missing. I felt this was grounds for appeal. I wanted to get the appeal off the ground [but] the information I was getting was very, very vague,” she said.

Adjudicating officer Roger McGrath noted that he had directed WRC staff on a previous date to write to Ms D, a former colleague of the complainant still working at the firm, with a witness summons. However, Ms D was not at the resumed hearing yesterday.

Ms Sheils’ solicitor, Brendan Hyland, had said Ms D was an “essential witness” needed to corroborate his client’s version of events on 8 June 2022. Mr McGrath accepted the company’s position that Ms D had not received the subpoena letter.

Mr Lyons said in evidence that the company’s handbook was “quite clear” in setting out the process for an appeal. He said: “If we’d received [a] formal appeal, we’d certainly have outsourced it again, in terms of fairness, I think.”

Cross-examining the CEO, Mr Hyland said: “Mr Lyons, do you think it reasonable to shout at staff and intimidate them, as you did on 8 July?”

“Em, allegedly, Mr Hyland, I think you’d say there,” Mr Lyons replied.

Mr McGrath disallowed further questioning on Mr Lyons’ alleged conduct on July 8th 2022 on the basis that the CEO had not addressed the allegations in his evidence in chief.

Questioning the independent investigator, human resources consultant Ray Ryan, Mr McGrath asked why he had chosen not to speak to Ms D.

He said that he took the view by the time he got to the end of Ms Sheils’ “list of complaints” he had taken the view “on the balance of probabilities based on my experience as an investigator that there was no validity to the complaints”.

“I made a decision as an informed investigator that the complaint of bullying as raised by Ms Sheils was not well founded,” he said.

“Do you not think it would have been more fair to have interviewed [Ms D]?” Mr McGrath asked.

“By the time I’d interviewed the three individuals already, as an experienced investigator and someone who acts for both employees and employers, the amount of distress and upset that had been caused in this investigation that was looking like a fishing exercise for grounds for bullying was futile,” Mr Ryan said.

“Had [Ms D] established facts, that were disputed, that Mr Lyons had raised his voice – even if she had, it would not corroborate an allegation of bullying,” Mr Ryan said. “I was satisfied there was no evidence of bullying in that organisation, and certainly not towards Ms Sheils,” he added.

The adjudicator, Mr McGrath, closed the hearing yesterday evening and will issue his decision in writing to the parties in due course.