Complainant: Nkemka Patrick Okachi

Respondent: Sodexo Ireland Limited

Complainant alleged unfair dismissal after being accused of sexual harassment, claiming the workplace investigation was flawed and lacked fair procedures.

The Complainant alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent after being falsely accused of sexual harassment. He had worked as a Cleaning Supervisor since May 2014 and was dismissed in February 2023 (earning €489.45 per week). The allegations stemmed from a conversation with a female colleague at a gym. He claimed the interaction was jovial, denying any inappropriate behaviour. He admitted to briefly placing a hand on her shoulder but insisted there was CCTV footage that could verify his account. The next day, he was suspended but was not shown the footage. During disciplinary meetings, he received a report and an opportunity to appeal, which he pursued. He later secured a higher-paying job from June 2023 to January 2024 but struggled to find further employment. 

The Respondent's witnesses provided evidence regarding the investigation and disciplinary process. A Mr. Nix led the investigation, acting on instructions from the Respondent’s HR after the complaint was reported to the client company. He outlined the steps taken, including providing statements to the Complainant, informing him of the allegations, and agreeing on minutes of the meeting. Mr. Nix stated that the Complainant admitted making comments to the woman and placing a hand on her shoulder, leading to a finding of a policy breach. He did not access CCTV footage, relying instead on the GSM’s statement. A colleague, with 23 years' experience, reviewed the investigation report and determined that dismissal was appropriate, as the Complainant did not recognise wrongdoing. However, she confirmed she did not consider CCTV footage. A separate colleague, who handled the appeal, upheld the dismissal, describing the client’s strong reaction. He confirmed that while he requested CCTV footage, the client refused to release it.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, with the Respondent failing to follow fair procedures or its own policies in handling the allegations of sexual harassment. The burden of proof lay with the Respondent to justify the dismissal, yet significant procedural flaws undermined its case. The suspension of the Complainant appeared premature and unjustified, as it was imposed before the complaint had been received. The Respondent bypassed its Dignity at Work Policy, which provided clear steps for addressing such allegations, and failed to provide the Complainant with the original complaint or CCTV footage, despite its reliance on hearsay evidence. Additionally, the investigation lacked objectivity, with key witnesses absent and crucial evidence, such as the receptionist’s statement, being presented after the suspension. The Complainant was denied the right to cross-examine the complainant, violating the principles of natural justice. Given these failures, the sanction of dismissal was deemed disproportionate. The Complainant had no prior disciplinary record, and the evidence against him was inconclusive. As a result, the decision to dismiss was overturned, and the Complainant was reinstated to his former position.

• Employers must ensure that workplace investigations and disciplinary procedures adhere to fair procedures and natural justice to avoid unfair dismissal claims. Before taking action, employers should properly assess complaints, ensuring allegations are clearly documented and supported by first-hand evidence rather than hearsay.
• If a complaint arises, it is crucial to follow company policies, such as a Dignity at Work Policy, and ensure consistency in handling allegations. Suspension should be a last resort, not an automatic response, as it can significantly impact an employee’s reputation. Employees must be given full details of the complaint, access to evidence relied upon, and an opportunity to challenge witness statements, including cross-examining complainants where necessary.
• Investigators must remain objective and independent, ensuring their conclusions are evidence-based rather than influenced by external pressure. Finally, employers should always consider alternative disciplinary measures before resorting to dismissal, ensuring any sanction is proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
  
  The full case can be found here:
  https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/january/adj-00045306.html