ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049843

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Iulia Andreea Zamfir

Automatic Amusements Limited

t/a D1 Club Casino

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Harriet Burgess BL Tracey Brady Solr., McGuigan Solicitors LLP

James McEvoy Work Matters Ireland

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00061204-001	25/01/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/04/2024 and 20/09/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

Any complaint being made under the Employment Equality Acts concerning discrimination, victimisation, discriminatory dismissal, unequal remuneration etc., is brought before the Workplace Relations Commission following a referral by the Director General. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended) a complaint has already been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who has in turn deemed it appropriate that the complaint be investigated with any appropriate and/or interested persons to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances and following a referral by the said Director General, of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed for this purpose (and/or an Equality Officer so appointed). I confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing and in the course of the hearing (and which have been opened to me).

In general terms, an Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states:-

“…a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. This will not exceed a twelve-month period.

The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended). S.77 allows a person who claims to have been discriminated against, or who claims to have been subjected to victimisation, or who claims to have been subjected to a discriminatory dismissal, or who asserts they have not been receiving equal remuneration etc in contravention of the Act may seek redress by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission.

In particular the Complainant (as set out in her Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 25th of January 2024) seeks redress from the Respondent in circumstances where she claims her Employer behaved unlawfully and discriminated against her in the course of her employment wherein she says that she was treated less favourably than another person has or would have been treated in a comparable situation on the grounds of her Gender (as detailed in Section 6 of the 1998 Act (as amended)).

The Operative Section is Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, where at :-

Sub Section 6 (1) For the purpose of this Act…discrimination shall be taken to occur where…

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) …...(the “discriminatory grounds”).

Section 6 (2) As between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds .. are…

(a) That one is a woman and the other is a man (the “gender ground”)…

In the event that the Complainant’s claim is upheld, it is open to me to make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination which have occurred and/or the victimisation experienced. It is also open to me to direct that a certain course of action be taken by an appropriate party which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act).

The Complainant herein has specifically alleged that she has also suffered victimisation in the workplace. Victimisation is defined in Section 74(2)of the Act –

For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to—

(a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,…

The Acts specifically protects a person against dismissal or other adverse treatment by their employer because they have made a complaint to their employer about possible discrimination or taken proceedings under the Equality Legislation or opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under these Acts etc. Penalising a person for any of these reasons is defined as victimisation. The Acts provide for complaints about victimisation to be made to the Workplace Relations Commission in the same away as for complaints of discrimination and with the same provision for redress (Per Section 74 of the Act).

The Complainant has also, she says, been harassed in the workplace. Harassment is described in Section 14(A)(7)(i) of the Acts –

“.. any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds” which “has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”

This can include

“.. acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words pictures or other materials.”

The Complainant has also, she says, been sexually harassed in the workplace. Sexual Harassment is described in Section 14(A)(7)(ii) of the Acts –

“.. any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, being conduct which…. has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”

Harassment and Sexual Harassment constitute discrimination by the Victim’s Employer in relation to the victim’s conditions of work. There is an obligation on the Employer to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Although not specifically referenced in the complaint form the Complainant has expanded her complaint so as to include an assertion that she has not been receiving equal remuneration in contravention of the Act.

The Complainant withdrew the claim that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

It is noted that in this case that there is a reliance by the Complainant on Section 15 of the Act which sets out the Employer’s Liability at 15 (1) as; -

“(1) Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purpose of this Act as done also by that person’s employer, whether or not it was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval.”….

“(3) In proceedings brought under this Act against an employer in respect of an act alleged to have been done by an employee of the employer, it shall be a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee—

(a) from doing that act, or

(b) from doing in the course of his or her employment acts of that description.”

As previously stated, in the event that the Complainant is successful it is open to me to make an award of compensation and /or give direction on a course of action which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act).

82.—(1) Subject to this section, the types of redress for which a decision of the Workplace Relations Commissionunder section 79 may provide are such one or more of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case:

(a) an order for compensation in the form of arrears of remuneration (attributable to a failure to provide equal remuneration) in respect of so much of the period of employment as begins not more than 3 years before the date of the referral under section 77 (1) which led to the decision;

(b) an order for equal remuneration from the date referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) an order for compensation for the effects of acts of discrimination or victimisation which occurred not earlier than 6 years before the date of the referral of the case under section 77;

(d) an order for equal treatment in whatever respect is relevant to the case;

(e) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is specified;

(f) an order for re-instatement or re-engagement, with or without an order for compensation.

The Complainant has asked that I specifically direct my attention to 82(1) (a) dealing with equal remuneration and 82(1) (e) concerning a course of action to be taken.

Equality cases which run before the WRC oblige the Complainant to make a Prima Facie case. In the first instance this is set out in Article 19(1) of the Recast Directive (Directive 2006/54) which provides as follows –

“….when persons who considered themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.”

This has been transposed into Irish Law through Section 85(A) of the Employment Equality Acts of 1998 to 2004 which sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination.

“in any proceedings facts are established .. by… a complainant from which it may be presumed there has been discrimination in relation to him/her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

The Complainant herself, therefore, must establish facts which show that she suffered discriminatory treatment. It is only when these facts have been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut any inference of discrimination that has been raised by her. The inference must be such that the Complainant has established a Prima Facie case that she has been treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would have been treated in a comparable situation on one of the recognised grounds of discrimination which in this instance is the “gender ground”.

Prima Facie evidence in this context, is evidence which in the absence of any contradictory evidence would lead any reasonable person to conclude that a discrimination had occurred.

The Labour Court’s approach to this issue and the test for applying section 85A (burden of proof) is well settled in a line of decisions of both bodies starting with the Labour Court Determination in Mitchell v Southern Health Board ([2001] ELR 201):

“..the claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only where these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

The Labour Court has also consistently stated that:

“The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts. This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may appropriately be drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence. At the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those

Once the Prima Facie case is established, the Respondent must rebut the prima facie case. This will require cogent evidence.

In Nevins, Murphy & Flood v Portroe Stevedores (EDA 051) the Labour Court held in adopting the reasoning of the Employment Appeals Tribunal for Great Britain in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite:-

“That since the facts necessary to prove a non-discriminatory explanation would usually be in the possession of the respondent, the Court should normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden…. mere denials of a discriminatory motive, in the absence of independent corroboration, must be approached with caution”.

The Adjudicator must therefore determine if the explanation provided by the respondent is adequate to discharge the burden of proof that the protected characteristic was not a factor in the treatment complained of by the Complainant.

Background:

This case was heard over two days.

The first day of hearing was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

The second day of hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

It should also be noted that the Complainant and Respondent witnesses were all agreeable to giving a formal affirmation that all evidence provided would be truthful. The giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 25th of January 2024.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a:

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was fully and legally represented. At the outset the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to truthfully give her evidence. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 11th day of April 2024. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in the making of her case. The Evidence adduced by the complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The complainant asserts she was subject to gendered discrimination at work, in the form of a failure to provide equal remuneration and sustained sexual harassment in the workplace and discrimination in the workplace. The complainant seeks:

(a) An order for compensation in the form of arrears of remuneration (attributable to a failure to provide equal remuneration) in respect of so much of the period of employment as begins not more than 3 years before her complaint to the WRC, the 25th January 2024; (pursuant to section 82 (1) (a) of the Employment Equality Acts)

(b) An order that the respondents take the following course of action: provide all employees with sexual harassment training; implement a dignity at work protocol; engage a third-party investigator for all future complaints regarding sexual harassment (pursuant to section 82 (1) (e) of the Employment Equality Acts).

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent entity was represented by an HR Consultancy firm. The Respondent provided me with a written submission dated 10th of April 2024. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent including the Complainant’s line Manager M and one of the co-owners. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were cross examined by the Complainant representative.

The Respondent rejects the assertion that the Complainant was subject to gendered discrimination at work. The Respondent rejects that there has been a failure to provide equal remuneration and rejects the allegation of sustained sexual harassment and discrimination.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing.

The complainant worked at D1 Club Casino for Automatic Amusements Limited (the respondent) beginning on 28th March 2018. The Complainant was engaged as a croupier and had come to the Respondent with 8 years’ experience as a dealer. Despite this level of experience, it is interesting to note that the Complainant was only ever paid Minimum Wage which continued for the duration of her employment.

I have formed the view based on the evidence provided, that this was a difficult work environment. The busiest time for the casino is late at night and after the pubs have closed. Many of the patrons arrive quite drunk and continue drinking. On top of that, there is the issue of people sustaining gambling losses. There is no doubt that tensions can run high and there is an expectation on all staff to be on the lookout for trouble and emotional overreaction. The evidence provided by the Complainant’s Manager MZ was noteworthy and fair in this regard. He gave an honest account of the sometimes-difficult atmosphere, and he accepted that he would have often said to the Complainant (as with all staff) that she didn’t work in a church. Basically, there was an expectation that the Complainant and all the staff were bound to manage customers and customer expectations. Our job MZ said (of management) is to make sure they don’t’ cross the line. There was, I accept, a level of resilience required to work in this particular workplace. Having listened to the Complainant give her evidence and then to be robustly cross-examined, I have formed the view that the Complainant has resilience and was not overly prim or demure. However, I do not necessarily accept that an Employer can assume that an employee with resilience and fortitude can somehow be left to their own devices. In particular, an Employer cannot abdicate its responsibility for its employees and owes a duty of care.

The Complainant gave compelling evidence concerning how difficult it was to work in this workplace. I have no reason not to accept that there was an ongoing issue of inappropriate interaction with customers. It amounted to misogyny. This might have been low level most of the time, but occasionally escalated to unacceptable levels of mistreatment and abuse. The Complainant was obliged in her role, to manage her tables and ensure people abided by the rules and followed her direction as the Dealer. This caused resentment. She said that she was constantly being called names and having her authority challenged. I accept the Complainant’s evidence when she says she had been grabbed a number of times by different customers and had been subjected to a certain amount of unsettling leering and explicit gestures. From time to time the Complainant complained but neither her line Manager nor the owner were minded to do much about it. The reply to it not being a church was often put to her. In fact, the Complainant’s evidence tended to suggest that both these men crossed boundaries themselves. She has alleged, for example, that one of the owners M was at her table one night in July of 2023 and he said to her ‘you might be cheap but you’re definitely not free’.

In any event, things came to a head on Thursday the 17th of August 2023 when the Complainant wrote an email to one of the co-owners setting out an earlier incident (on the 11th of August) and generally making her feelings known about the workplace. The email read as follows:

“To whom it may concern, I'm writing this to bring to your knowledge the incident that happened on Friday, the 11th of August 2023. I made a joke while dealing on Ar1 and Daniel heard me, he came to the table and in front of the customers he threatened to send me home even though I wasn't even on the go list, was extremely rude and disrespectful to me. Took my joke very personal even though it wasn't directed to him.

Before going on my break, I asked him to apologise because there was no need to be rude to me and he refused. I said I'll go and tell Sergeij and even then he was again extremely rude. Sergeij knows about the situation, he checked the audio on Ar1, asked Daniel several times to apologise but Daniel said no.

Sergeij advised me to write a report. It's not the first time Daniel is disrespectful and abusive towards me and I brought this to Marcin‘s attention before‘ Also, I‘ve been threatened by a poker player on the 6th of Aug because I told him £30 is a big amount to take off the table (he was going to play roulette) he lost the plot and threatened to wait for me outside and run me over with his car, he said a lot of other stuff also. Sergei investigated the situation, checked the audio and got the customer to apologise to me. I told Sergeij that I'm afraid this guy will wait for me outside if he gets barred because of me and I don't want to have to check over my shoulder every time I walk to my car. I actually passed by this poker player twice since the incident happened after finishing work.

I've been sexually harassed, verbally abused, discriminated and I've left work crying too many times lately. Been crying on my breaks, I've been doing therapy the past 4 months and every time I go to Marcin to tell him about the abuse that I'm dealing with I've been shown the door if l'm not happy, told to remember that don't work in a church and also I'm gonna use his exact words:

"Andreea, stop complaining about customers having dirty thoughts about you, you really have a nice ass, but this is off the record"

Billy and Michael have always been portrait as the big bad wolf to us by the management so I've never had the courage to write about this stuff but l can't handle the abuse anymore. I'd like to be respected and not be afraid to come to work. I've been mistreated, abused and disrespected for so long that I forgot l also have rights.”

The Complainant elaborated on what had happened in the course of her evidence. She was aggrieved by the lack of support in the workplace and had been genuinely frightened by the threat made by a customer that he would run her over. Management had made the customer apologise. I fully accept that the email on 17th August 2023 outlined extremely serious instances of sexual harassment, abusive behaviour and discrimination. Mr WD one of the Company Directors and co-owners emailed the Complainant:

“The issues raised in your email are of great concern and contrary to Company Policy I am eager to ensure the matter is addressed fully and appropriately. To this end, I would like you to meet with me at around 9pm tonight or tomorrow night at the D1 Casino or my office to discuss the matter and how we can best achieve a full resolution.”

The complainant met with her employer who purported to investigate the matters raised. I would accept the Complainant’s assertion that the investigation was perfunctory and did not fully explore all the issues raised. The option was to deal with certain matters raised in an informal way and ignore other matters raised. There was no root and branch examination of the toxic levels of misogyny and harassment being claimed by the Complainant. Management forced a number of half-hearted apologies from certain members of staff and closed the matter down without seemingly really understanding that there was an underlying problem.

Then, and quite unexpectedly, the Complainant herself became the subject of a disciplinary investigation. This arose out of two statements made by members of staff SM and AS which were gathered as part of the informal investigation just conducted. The Complainant’s performance was criticised by both members of staff, and I would go so far as to say that staff member SM opted to tear the Complainant’s reputation to shreds stating that the Complainant was:

“..unprofessional, not disciplined, poorly educated in my opinion.. she doesn’t know how to talk to people in a good manner. Constantly generates problems and escalate them later. We had lots of cases what the players complained about her. Because she’s like that we are losing players they don’t want to come back while she is here..”

In the invitation to an Investigation meeting (dated 20th of September 2023) the incident which the Complainant had previously raised concerning a customer who threatened to drive over her legs is somehow turned on it’s head and becomes an allegation of the Complainant having been unprofessional and rude to the same customer.

To my mind the clear implication of this is that the Employer held the view that the complainant somehow deserved to have her life threatened.

It is worth noting that the customer in question did not make any complaint about the Complainant and there is and was no previous performance issue with this Employee who has, it seems, been forced to navigate a difficult working environment for years.

The upshot of the Disciplinary process which followed was that the Complainant received a final written warning. This was communicated by a letter dated 3rd November 2023, the employer wrote to the complainant stating:

“This evidence supports the allegation that you did behave inappropriately and failed to handle the matter professionally. While I appreciate that Mr R might not have behaved very well throughout the exchange; it is incumbent upon you, as a staff member, to remain polite and professional at all times. If a client is aggressive or rude, it is best to request that they remain courteous when addressing you.

If this approach is unsuccessful, to arrange for a different member of staff to attend to the client, might resolve the issue. However, you took neither option and l consider this means you could have handled the matter differently.

It is a concern to me that you believe that your behaviour in this instance was acceptable. In light of the above, I believe that it is reasonable to believe that the allegation against you is proven. Given the gravity of the matter, I have decided to issue with a Final Written Warning. In line with Company policy, this warning will remain on your personnel file for twelve months. If in this time this behaviour is repeated or indeed there is any occasion of misconduct, further disciplinary action may be taken against you, which could result in the termination of your employment.”

The written warning outcome was confirmed on Appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, I find that the process was wholly unsatisfactory. The Complainant wrote a letter in August of 2023 wherein she laid bare the difficulties she had encountered time and again in the workplace. These were issues concerning harassment and sexual harassment. The complainant has been subjected to sustained sexual harassment and discrimination at work. When she tried to raise the instances of sexual harassment and discrimination with her employer, she herself was subjected to a disciplinary process.

I am satisfied that the owners/management failed in their duty of care. I am satisfied that this was an incredibly difficult workplace which failed to protect female employees from sustained stereotyping and belittlement. Customers and indeed male colleagues were ambivalent to the casual sexism that pervaded. There were no protection measures in place and no zero-tolerance policy implemented. Complaints were laughed off with comments such as it’s not a chuch or there’s the door. Women on the floor were left to their own devices, were expected to show resilience and basically take it. This is an unenlightened and harmful approach. The Complainant is seeking an affirmative action be taken. The complainant wishes to make clear that she is not seeking redress under section 82 (1) (c) for an order for compensation for the effects of acts of discrimination or victimisation, as the complainant is bringing personal injuries proceedings.

The complainant left this employment with the respondent on 21st February 2024.

The Complainant has brought and equal pay claim and has asked that I consider the pay differential between herself and another dealer/croupier TL. TL is male and Irish born. The pay claim was simplified by Counsel for the Complainant in the course of the hearing. The figures were shared with the other side. The Respondent sought to assert that TL was not a dealer in the same category as the Complainant, and that he had some sort of supervisory role in that he oversaw poker nights. I found this evidence to be weak, and in any event, TL was not on hand to give this evidence. The only piece of concrete evidence that I had was the list of names presented which gave the names and positions of all the employees who had received manuals and procedures. Both the Complainant and TL are described as Dealers in this list, and I am satisfied that they were of an equal ranking and doing the same work in the workplace. TL was getting paid slightly more than the Complainant without any reason given. A prima facie case has been established. I am entitled to make an order of compensation in the form of arrears of remuneration for a period of up three years prior to the making of the complaint, per:

(b) an order for equal remuneration from the date referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) an order for compensation for the effects of acts of discrimination or victimisation which occurred not earlier than 6 years before the date of the referral of the case under section 77;

(d) an order for equal treatment in whatever respect is relevant to the case;

(e) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is specified;

Decision:

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00061204-001 – The Complainant has established that she was discriminated against and that she was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. At the Complainant’s request I am directing that the respondents take the following course of action: that the Respondent provide all employees with sexual harassment training; that the Respondent implement a dignity at work protocol; that the Respondent engage a third-party investigator for all future complaints regarding sexual harassment (pursuant to section 82 (1) (e) of the Employment Equality Acts).

The Complainant has established that she was paid less than her male counterpart which amounts to a gender based discrimination and I am making an order for compensation in the form of arrears of remuneration (attributable to a failure to provide equal remuneration) in respect of so much of the period of employment as begins not more than 3 years before her complaint to the WRC (the 25th January 2024) and I award €7,000.00.

Dated: 14-01-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: