Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

{A Worker}

{An Education Body}

Representatives

Barra Faughnan BL Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001671

15/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001672

15/08/2023

The Worker was seconded to the Respondent at the time of the dispute.

The Worker is an executive who was the subject of an allegation of sexual harassment.

IR - SC – 00001671 & IR-SC-00001672

The Respondent’s anti-harassment procedure applies to the allegation. The Worker believes the Respondent did not comply with the anti-harassment procedure in the following respect:

(a)    Defamatory allegations which the Worker requested be removed remained in the complaint under investigation.

(b)    The Worker was only informed after three months that the defamatory allegations would not form part of the complaint. Notwithstanding this, the defamatory allegations formed part of the final draft report despite the Worker being informed this was not part of the complaint.

(c)     The Worker says the Respondent did not comply with the Respondents policy which provides for a time period for consideration of the informal complaint procedure and mediation prior to the formal complaint procedure.

(d)    The Worker says no letter was obtained from the Complainant confirming she wished to proceed with the formal complaint procedure as required by the policy.

(e)    The Worker complains that correspondence sent to the Respondent and Investigators regarding the process remained unanswered causing him increased stress and upset.

(f)      The Worker says the Terms of Reference used do not comply with the Employers own procedures. He lost confidence in how the Employer and Investigators were dealing with the investigation of the allegation.

(g)    The investigation found the allegation did not amount to sexual harassment. The Worker was surprised to be informed there was a case to answer against him for the remark.

(h)    Following a disciplinary hearing, the Worker was given a first written warning.

(i)      As a result of the process, the Worker ceased his employment with the Employer at an earlier date and has suffered financial loss.

The Employer did not implement its disciplinary policy correctly, this caused unnecessary stress to the Worker and negatively impacted his ability to continue to work and his reputation.

The Employer rebuts the Workers dispute regarding the investigation of the complaint and says no intervention in this process is warranted.

The Worker was provided with a final investigation report dated 17th January 2023. The Worker resigned terminating his secondment following receipt of the draft investigation report on 8th January 2023, prior to conclusion of the process. The Worker admitted he made an inappropriate comment to a junior member of staff. The disciplinary process and sanction were required, and the Worker did not challenge the outcome of the investigation.

IR - SC – 00001671 & IR-SC-00001672

(a)    The Employer arranged for the allegations against the Worker unrelated to the Complainant to be removed.

(b)    This is untrue. The unrelated allegations were removed.

(c)     The Employer says the Complainant did not wish to proceed with an informal complaint or mediation. She requested to proceed with the formal complaint procedure in writing.

(d)    The Employer says this is incorrect, the Complainant’s letter was contained in the investigation report.

(e)    The Employer says there is no substance to the complaints.

(f)      The Employer says the Investigators changes to the Terms of Reference are not substantial.

(g)    The investigation found the allegation did not amount to sexual harassment. The Worker admitted that the remark created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the Complainant and this simply should not have happened. Any lack of confidence of the Worker is a result of his own actions.

(h)    Following a disciplinary hearing, the Worker was given a first written warning which remained on his record for six months. The Employer had an obligation to investigate the complaint and to comply with its procedures.

(i)      The Worker ceased his secondment with the Employer without notice.  Any decision of the Worker to take a career break is a personal decision as a result of his own actions.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Worker accepts there was wrongdoing on his part but believes the way in which the complaint procedure and disciplinary process was conducted falls below the standards required.

The Employer maintains the complaint procedure and disciplinary process was conducted in compliance with the applicable policies and there was a balanced investigation.

I have considered the submissions and I am satisfied that the defamatory allegation which was included in the investigation report, did not form part of the investigation and findings against the Worker. Although there was some delay, and change to the Terms of Reference by the Employer, I do not believe this is of significance. In the circumstances, I make no recommendation in relation to the dispute.