LCR23257

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00055751 (CA-00067918, IR-SC-00003519)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on

16th May 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 14th May 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend that the Worker deems the matter to be closed.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd April 2026.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00055751/CA-00067918, dated 14 May 2025) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the Worker’s complaint. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 23 April 2026.

The Worker is a serving Member of An Garda Siochana. She is currently on long-term sick leave, classified under Garda Code 11.37 as arising from an Injury on Duty. An Garda Siochana (‘the Employer’) has in place a comprehensive dignity at work policy, agreed with the representative organisations: ‘Working Together to Create a Positive Working Environment’ (WTCPWE/’the Policy’)).

Factual Background

The Worker made a complaint of sexual harassment under the Policy on 7 February 2023 against a supervisor.. This complaint, however, was not investigated under the Policy as the Employer decided to initiate the disciplinary process against the alleged perpetrator.

The Worker’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Worker that she suffered a detriment in so far as Management’s decision removed from her the right to participate in an investigation into her allegations in accordance with the procedures and safeguards provided for in the policy. Instead, she became a mere witness in a disciplinary process over into which she otherwise had no input and no potential to determine its course. She further submits that Management’s decision was a departure from an agreed procedural framework for the investigation of complaints of sexual harassment.

The Employer’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Employer that its decision not to investigate the Worker’s complaint of sexual harassment under the Policy was made having regard to the serious nature of the complaint and the ‘balance of power’ which existed between her and her supervisor. Management submit that the foregoing factors also informed its decision that it was ‘more appropriate’ to deal with the issues alleged in the Worker’s complaint under its Disciplinary Regulations.

Discussion and Decision

The Court does not accept the rationale advanced by the Employer for its unilateral decision not to investigate the Worker’s complaint of sexual harassment under the Policy which is the mechanism agreed between the Employer and the staff representative organisations. Regardless of what the eventual outcome of such an investigation would have been, the Worker had a legitimate expectation that she would be afforded the benefit of the procedures and safeguards provided for in the policy, including the right to appeal any decision arrived at. She was denied all of that, without any prior consultation.

The Court finds that the complaint herein is well-founded and that the Worker should receive compensation of €5,000.00 in recognition of the detriment occasioned to her.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
JNF	______________________
21/05/226	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.