LCR23334

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ00054807 (CA00066899001, IR-SC-00003320)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 09 October 2025 in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 16 September 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 do not recommend in favour of the Worker.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 August 2026

RECOMMENDATION:

The Appeal

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00054807, dated 16 September 2025) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 9 October 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 21 August 2026.

The Dispute

On 14 March 2024 the Worker reported an allegation of sexual harassment against a colleague that she said had occurred outside of work on 3 November 2023. The allegation was made to VK who is the Talent Development and Diversity Manager with Dublin Bus (the Company’). VK gave the Worker a copy of the Company’s Dignity and Respect Policy (the Policy’) and discussed the options available under the Policy to progress her complaint VK also gave the Worker a copy of the Company’s Employee Assistance Programme.

The Worker reverted on 19 March and 21 March 2024, by email and telephone, and advised VK that she wished to progress her complaint via the Secondary Informal Procedure set out in the Policy. The Worker subsequently submitted a written account of her complaint, and a third-party investigator was contracted by the Company to conduct an investigation into the complaint. Both the Worker and the alleged perpetrator were party to a written MOU prepared by the third-party investigator. In July 2024, the Worker advised her trade union representative that she was feeling ‘psychologically unsafe at work’. This was relayed to VK and the Worker was stood down from driving that day and referred to the Chief Medical Officer for assessment on 16 July 2024. She went on long-term sick leave from that date.

The Worker referred her originating complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 23 October 2024. There appear to be three strands to the Worker’s complaint as she presented it to the Court: she says that she had requested that her complaint of sexual harassment be dealt with formally rather than via the Secondary Informal Procedure; the Company didn’t encourage her to report the incident that gave rise to the complaint of sexual harassment to the Gardai and the Company had not acceded to her request to move the alleged perpetrator to a different location as she felt uncomfortable and unsafe about potentially coming into contact with him in the workplace.

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that VK had a very detailed engagement with the Worker when the latter came forward with her allegation of sexual harassment and that following that engagement the Worker made an informed decision that she wished to move forward using the Secondary Informal Procedure. The Worker confirmed her decision in this regard verbally and in writing to the Company and signed up to the MOU drafted by the external investigator and which confirmed how the process would unfold.

The Company also submits that VK asked the Worker at their very first meeting on 14 March 2024 if she had reported the alleged incident to the Gardai. The Worker told VK that she hadn’t yet done so and VK, it is submitted, encouraged her to go to the Gardai if she felt that she needed to.

Thirdly, the Company submits that it could not have acceded to the Worker’s request to move the alleged perpetrator to a different location as no investigation or disciplinary process had yet taken place and to have moved him would have been construed as a precipitous sanction against him.

Finally, it is submitted that the Worker has not exhausted the Company’s internal procedures and her referral to the Workplace Relations Commission is, therefore, premature and in breach of company-union agreements.

Discussion and Decision

The Court notes that the Worker has resumed working and has, at her request, been moved to a new base.

The Court finds that the Worker’s complaints are inconsistent with the facts as borne out by the written correspondence between the Worker and the Company and the written MOU, drawn up by the external investigator, to which she was a party. In short, the Court finds no basis for making a finding that the Company did not adhere to the Policy when processing the Worker’s complaint of alleged sexual harassment.

The Court, therefore, uphold the Adjudication Officer’s findings.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
BB	______________________
09/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Bernard Byrne, Court Secretary