Social Affairs

Sexually harassed worker ‘not entitled’ to get copy of report upholding her complaint

Male colleague sent Ability West worker lewd texts and put his ‘hands on her hips’

The WRC heard Shannon Holland's colleague sent a text asking her if she wanted 'toe-curling orgasmic sex'. Photograph: Colin Keegan/Collins Dublin

Stephen Bourke
Tue Dec 13 2022 - 13:21

A care worker who was sexually harassed by a superior three years ago was told she was “not entitled” to get a copy of the final investigation report upholding her complaint – even though the perpetrator got a copy.

The man was sacked in 2020 following complaints against him by two workers at an Ability West centre in the w of Ireland. Along with sexual harassment, they also alleged he attended work under the influence of “alcohol or other substances”.

The Workplace Relations Commission heard further evidence on Monday by one of the workers, Shannon Holland, who lodged a case under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Ability West.

She claims the disability non-profit, with an address at Blackrock House, Dún Na Carraige, Galway, discriminated against her on the grounds of gender by way of sexual harassment and constructively dismissed her.

READ MORE

At a hearing on April 29th this year, the tribunal heard evidence about a string of texts from the senior colleague in May 2019 that Ms Holland said left her feeling “really afraid”.

These included the man asking her whether she wanted “toe-curling orgasmic sex” and stating: “You owe me BJ”, along with a reference to a “hand job”.

She also gave evidence that the senior colleague had placed his hands on her hips at work in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable on one occasion.

Ability West maintains it had a full set of procedures in place, took reasonably practical steps in response to the complaints and “discharged its responsibility to prevent harassment” by placing the perpetrator on administrative leave before sacking him.

Ability West’s then-HR director, who cannot be named because of a direction by the adjudicating officer, gave evidence of appointing an experienced investigator to examine the complaints against the senior employee after Ms Holland lodged a formal grievance in December 2019.

He said the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the subject of the investigation had taken ill caused delays, with the tribunal hearing that the final report was not ready until six and a half months after the original complaint.

The HR director said on Tuesday that the investigation upheld Ms Holland’s sexual harassment allegations, along with “a number” of the other claims she made.

The witness said he wrote to Ms Holland inviting her to a one-on-one meeting in the boardroom of Ability West’s headquarters at Blackrock House in Galway City on June 8th, 2020, adding: “You are not entitled to a copy of the final report.”

He said he had “the complete file with the finished report” and read the findings to her aloud.

The perpetrator received a copy, however, as there were “adverse findings” made against him, the witness added.

At the end of that month, the HR director said he wrote to Ms Holland to tell her “the person who she’d complained of had his employment terminated but there was a right to appeal”.

Cross-examining the HR director, Ms Holland’s barrister Anne-Marie Giblin put it to him that he had not informed her client whether or not the perpetrator had pursued an appeal.

“I didn’t because if the appeal had been successful, the decision overturned, and it impacted on the complainant I would have engaged without delay ... I was mindful that this was a tough time for [her] and I chose to inform her,” the witness said.

“No certainty was given to her on that matter?” counsel asked.

“I didn’t communicate her with her on the outcome of the appeal,” the witness replied.

“There is an acceptance by the respondent [Ability West] that sexual harassment took place?”

“That was upheld, yes,” the witness said.

Ms Giblin put it to the HR director that the investigation report had looked into the question of whether the perpetrator of the harassment was in a relationship with another female colleague in the unit with whom Ms Holland had to continue working after the dismissal, identified as Ms Y.

“We’re not talking about a friendship, we’re talking about a relationship between a male and a female. Was that taken into account following on from the finding of sexual harassment?” Ms Giblin said.

“Chair, if I just might correct, it’s an alleged relationship,” said Ibec employer relations executive Aisling McDevitt, appearing for Ability West.

Ability West’s position was that the other complaints made by Ms Holland about the perpetrator – which, along with sexual harassment, also included complaints of attending work under the influence of “alcohol or other substances” and of scheduling himself to work alone with Ms Y – were dealt with by the man’s sacking and did not amount to systemic issues at the service.

“The [perpetrator] denied that he was in any sort of romantic relationship with the employee [Ms Y],” the witness said.

In response to questioning by the adjudicating officer, Anne McElduff, the HR officer said he opted to issue the final report to the perpetrator but not Ms Holland because “adverse findings” had been made against the former and the matter was proceeding to a disciplinary process.

After taking closing submissions, Ms McElduff closed the hearing to consider her decision.

LATEST STORIES