Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a postal operative on 3 April 2017, and is still employed by the Respondent. The Complainant alleged that she was inappropriately touched by a colleague on 22 February 2022. On 24 February 2022 the Complainant asked that colleague to leave her alone, but this led to an argument. The argument and incident were reported to the floor manager at the time and the Complainant made a statement on 25 February 2022. In mid-May, the Complainant was advised that the investigation which took place was inconclusive. The Complainant had not been interviewed as part of the investigation and only spoke with a HR representative of the Respondent on 9 June. The Complainant said she was required to work with her alleged harasser and hear him say that he was innocent, and the Complainant had lied. The Complainant moved her work location to avoid this and alleged the Respondent did not follow its own policies.

The Respondent argued it followed its Dignity at Work Policy. It had the opportunity to review CCTV footage of the incident which was inconclusive as to whether the alleged touching occurred as described or at all. The investigator used the written statement of the Complainant and an interview with the alleged harasser who said he did not have knowledge of the incident. The investigator found that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the complaint. The Respondent alleged the CCTV footage appeared to show the Complainant and the alleged harasser laughing and joking after the incident.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer found the Respondent did not adequately investigate or take seriously the Complainant’s complaint. The Respondent’s procedure fell “very short” of what is required by the WRC Code of Practice for the investigation of harassment or what is required to defend an allegation of discrimination under the Employment Equality Act. Having regard to the policies available for the Respondent, and its size and resources available to ensure compliance with those policies, the Adjudication Officer ordered the two years’ compensation to be paid to the Complainant, a sum of €53,560. This is the maximum sum permissible under the Employment Equality Act and was made in part to ensure the award was effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Allegations of sexual harassment must be investigated and taken seriously, because a failure to do so can result in significant compensatory awards and reputational damage for the employer. Large organisations who are perceived as having the capacity to “know better” and the ability to pay an award may be required to provide larger payments than they would otherwise as a way of ensuring such incidents do not occur again.

The full case is here: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/september/adj-00040021.html