The WRC held that a manager’s dismissal for sexual harassment was disproportionate and procedurally unfair, awarding €16,350 compensation.

The Complainant began work for the Respondent in March 2021 on a fixed-term contract and was promoted to operations manager in October 2021, later becoming assistant manager and second-in-command to the CEO. In January 2024 he took a female colleague’s phone and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. He admitted the act as a “joke”. A second colleague later reported a 2022 incident where he had accessed her phone and posted vulgar social-media messages while she was on holiday. An external investigator interviewed all parties and, in February 2024, found both incidents proven and constituting serious sexual harassment. Following a disciplinary hearing in March 2024, the CEO and a board member dismissed him for gross misconduct. The Complainant appealed, apologising but alleging bias, procedural flaws, and a pre-judged process. He argued that workplace culture involved sexual banter and that dismissal was disproportionate. After considering his submissions, the Board upheld the dismissal. The WRC found that the employer had followed its anti-bullying and harassment policy, provided fair procedures, and acted within its rights.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s dismissal was fair, proportionate, and justified under section 6(4)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 because it resulted directly from his conduct. They stressed that an employer need only show the decision fell within the “range of reasonable responses”, not that another body would have made the same decision. Citing British Leyland v Swift and AIB v Purcell, it noted that dismissal is fair if a reasonable employer could have acted likewise. Since the Complainant admitted the key acts of sexual harassment, the Respondent said a lengthy investigation was unnecessary. The Respondent maintained that its anti-harassment policy treated even one incident as gross misconduct warranting dismissal. After a full investigation and disciplinary hearing, managers reasonably concluded that two proven acts of sexual harassment fatally breached trust. Further, the Respondent emphasised its duty to protect reputation and workplace dignity.

The Adjudicating Officer applied s.6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, placing the burden on the employer to show “substantial grounds”, while recognising that dismissal may be justified where it results mainly from conduct (s.6(4)(b)). Although the dismissal letter gave no reasons, the employer had relied on an investigator’s findings of “high-severity” sexual harassment. Applying s.6(7), the Adjudicator assessed both reasonableness and fair procedures. The Complainant had admitted two incidents which met the policy definition of sexual harassment, but the “high severity” label was found overstated and the revival of the 2022 incident unfair given no action was taken then. An independent investigation was unnecessary and strayed beyond its terms; namely, the employer failed to offer the policy-mandated appeal of the investigation. Also, the disciplinary panel deliberated briefly, failed to consider lesser sanctions, and treated dismissal as inevitable. Overall, the dismissal was disproportionate and procedurally unfair. Compensation of €16,350 (30% of losses) was awarded, reflecting the Complainant’s contributory fault.

Employers should:

• Ensure disciplinary procedures strictly follow their own written policies and the statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. When misconduct is admitted, an investigation may be shorter. Note, employees must still receive clear allegations, access to evidence, and a genuine opportunity to respond. Panels must independently assess severity and consider alternatives such as warnings or demotion, rather than treating dismissal as automatic. 
   
  
• Policies should be reviewed regularly. Where appeal rights exist, employees must be informed and allowed to exercise them. Documentation of each step protects fairness and defends against unfair-dismissal claims.

The full case can be found here.