It runs the same way most times. A complaint is made. The employer, wanting to be seen to take it seriously, commissions a formal investigation. Months pass. The finding is that the conduct did not meet the definition of bullying. And everybody is worse off than they were at the start.
Why Nobody Wins That Outcome
The complainant experiences the finding as a verdict that they were wrong to complain — which is not what it says, but is invariably how it lands. They have given statements, had their account tested, watched colleagues be interviewed about them, waited months, and continued working in the same building throughout. They now feel disbelieved and exposed. The person complained of has spent those months under investigation, which marks people regardless of outcome; exoneration relieves surprisingly little of it, and they usually feel they can never manage that individual again. The team has taken sides and will not un-take them. And the employer has spent significant money and management time to arrive at a position where the working relationship is worse, an absence or a resignation is likely, and the underlying problem has not been touched at any point. Note that nobody behaved badly here. The employer took the complaint seriously. The investigator did their job properly. The process worked exactly as designed — which is the problem, because it was designed to determine whether a threshold was crossed, and that was never the question that needed answering.
The Definition Trap, and the One Decision Point
The Code describes bullying as repeated inappropriate behaviour which could reasonably be regarded as undermining dignity at work; an isolated incident generally does not qualify, and reasonable and appropriate management of performance or conduct is expressly not bullying. That definition is deliberately and properly narrow — but it means a great deal of genuinely damaging workplace conduct falls outside it. A manager can be abrupt, exclusionary, inconsistent and demoralising without any of it being bullying in law. An investigation can only answer the question it was asked, so it answers that one, correctly, and the actual problem goes entirely unaddressed. Mediation never asks that question. It makes no findings, engages no definition and requires no threshold — it asks how these people will work together from here, which is what needed deciding all along. The avoidable moment is a single decision point: when the complaint arrives and someone chooses the process. Ask what the complainant actually wants (frequently for it to stop and to be understood, not a finding), whether anything would have to happen if the complaint were upheld, and whether this is an allegation requiring determination or a relationship requiring repair. The free sorting tool walks exactly that.
The mirror-image error is equally serious. Mediating something that required findings — serious misconduct, harassment, safety, a protected disclosure — fails the complainant and exposes the employer. The point is not that mediation is better. It is that the sorting question deserves a proper answer, and it is usually answered by whoever finds one option more convenient.
A complaint just arrived and a process to choose? 01 5827148.
Richard O’Shea — Solicitor & Mediator
Solicitor at Mary Molloy Solicitors (established 1981) and holder of the Law Society of Ireland Diploma in Mediation. The firm also runs a substantial employment practice, which is why the honest sorting question — whether a situation needs a mediation or an investigation — gets answered at the first call rather than halfway through. Workplace mediations are conducted on site, at neutral venues, at The Ormond Building on Ormond Quay, at the Kilkenny office — or fully online. The mediator is appointed by both sides and acts for neither. 01 5827148 · richardoshea@marymolloysolicitors.com · LinkedIn
General information, not legal advice. This website contains general information about workplace mediation and Irish law. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor—client relationship. Every workplace situation turns on its own facts, and advice on yours requires a consultation.
The mediator is not your legal adviser. Where Mary Molloy Solicitors is appointed as mediator, the mediator is neutral: the mediator acts for no party, advises no party, makes no findings and decides nothing. This is so regardless of which party is paying the fee. All participants are encouraged to take independent legal advice, and in particular to take advice before signing any agreement reached in mediation. Employees may wish to seek advice from their own solicitor or trade union. The firm does not act as mediator in any matter in which it acts, or has acted, for a party — conflicts are checked before any appointment is accepted.
Mediation is not a substitute for a required process. Some matters must be investigated rather than mediated, including allegations of serious misconduct, matters engaging health and safety duties, and protected disclosures. Nothing on this site suggests that mediation should displace an employer’s statutory obligations, a grievance or disciplinary procedure where one is required, or a complainant’s entitlement to have a complaint formally investigated or to bring proceedings.
Fees. Fees for mediation are agreed in writing before the mediation begins, and fees for legal services are agreed in writing with the client at the outset. In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.
Tax. Nothing on this website is tax advice. Where any payment or arrangement has tax consequences, those questions belong with your accountant or tax adviser and with Revenue’s own guidance, and are best addressed before anything is signed.