Employee’s sexual harassment and late provision of written employment terms claims succeeded, but unfair dismissal and protected disclosure claims failed due to lack of formal notification to the employer.

The Complainant said that she had been a long-standing member of the Citywest gym before she began working there as a fitness instructor in September 2024. She stated that she worked about 40 hours each week at €13.20 per hour, was paid monthly. She submitted that she did not receive payslips, although bank statements showed wage payments from the Respondent. She described carrying out a wide range of duties, including instructing classes, making sales calls, responding to online queries, and cleaning the gym and equipment. She said that her probation reviews with the area manager were positive and that her performance, ideas, and classes had been well received. She alleged that the gym manager made sexual remarks, shouted at her in front of members, and treated her differently from colleagues. She claimed that when she challenged his behaviour and refused to sign a warning without advice, she was effectively dismissed.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing to challenge the evidence given by the Complainant. However, the case against the claims was considered through the legal issues raised and the available material. In relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, the position advanced on behalf of the Respondent was that the Complainant had not made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Although she objected to the manager’s remarks and conduct, it was contended that she did not properly communicate any alleged wrongdoing to the employer through an effective complaint. Regarding the penalisation claim, it was found that there was insufficient evidence that any dismissal or adverse treatment resulted from a formal complaint of harassment. As to the terms of employment issue, the Respondent’s position was weakened by the uncontested evidence that no written statement had been provided within the statutory timeframe and that the contract issued very late.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act was not well founded because the Complainant had not completed the necessary step of communicating the alleged wrongdoing to her employer. Although she had expressed disapproval to her manager and attempted to contact the area manager by telephone, this did not amount to a protected disclosure. The complaint of penalisation for making a complaint of harassment also failed for the same reason. However, the Adjudicator accepted that the manager’s remarks were unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and had the effect of violating the Complainant’s dignity and creating a humiliating and offensive environment. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Respondent, the sexual harassment complaint succeeded. The Adjudicator also found that the Respondent breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act by failing to provide timely written terms. Compensation of €5,500 and €2,112 respectively was awarded, totalling €7,612.

Employers should:

• Ensure managers understand the boundaries of acceptable workplace conduct and the legal consequences of harassment. Sexual remarks, innuendo, and humiliating comments, even if presented casually, could amount to unlawful harassment where they violate dignity or create an offensive environment.  
   
  
• Operate robust complaint-handling mechanisms. When concerns are raised informally, management should document them, follow up promptly, and offer a safe route for escalation outside the immediate line manager.  
   
  
• Comply strictly with statutory obligations concerning written terms and conditions. Core terms must be issued within the first five days, with fuller particulars within two months of employment. This reduces legal risk and demonstrates that an employer takes workplace rights seriously.           
  

The full case can be found here.