Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Police Officer

A Police Force

Representatives

A Representative Association

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 - 00003519

06/12/2024

The Worker claimed that her sexual harassment complaint, submitted under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy, was not managed in accordance with the Policy’s procedures. Instead of being investigated under that framework, the Employer addressed it through its Discipline Regulations. She contended that this approach was unfair.

On 7 February 2023, the Worker formally submitted a sexual harassment complaint, having initially lodged an informal complaint in January 2023. The Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy outlines a specific process for handling such complaints, emphasising timeliness, clarity, confidentiality, and respectful communication. However, the Worker contends that this policy was not followed in her case. She stated that she was not given an explanation of the process, nor was she provided with the relevant policy documents outlining her rights. Her complaint was instead managed under the Employer’s Disciplinary Procedure, a move she claims breached internal policy and compromised her confidentiality.

The Worker highlights several failures in adherence to the Dignity at Work Policy. Notably, she received no formal written communication on the outcome of her complaint. Instead, she learned about it indirectly through unrelated internal discussions. The Worker was also denied the opportunity to appeal or respond to outcomes, both of which are rights outlined in the Dignity at Work Policy and reinforced under Statutory Instrument No. 208/2012. This legislation specifies essential procedural standards for handling allegations of sexual harassment, including time limits, protection from victimisation, written reports, and fair treatment for all involved.

Despite these requirements, the Employer initiated an investigation under its Disciplinary Regulations rather than the prescribed Dignity at Work process. This deviation removed the Worker from her role as a complainant with specific rights and instead treated her merely as a witness. During this process, she was required to provide a statement without the support of a witness. The statement was taken under stressful conditions, during which the Worker became physically ill and required hospitalisation. At no point did the Inspector suggest rescheduling the session to accommodate her wellbeing.

The investigation under the Dignity at Work Policy was abandoned without any prior notice or justification. Instead, disciplinary proceedings were launched against M, the individual accused of harassment. The Worker was never provided with a formal outcome of this process. Although she was repeatedly placed on standby to testify before the Disciplinary Board, she was never called upon. In one instance, in October 2024, she waited for five hours at a police station only to be told late in the afternoon that her attendance was no longer required and that a verdict had already been reached.

Further undermining the fairness of the process, the Worker was denied access to or the chance to comment on witness statements and responses – a right explicitly stated in the Dignity at Work Policy. The only reference to the conclusion of the complaint came via a written report from a colleague, B, who had no formal role in the case. This report stated that two separate inquiries had vindicated M and dismissed the Worker’s claims. B’s report also cast doubt on the Worker’s credibility and accused her of dishonesty regarding allegations of investigator bias. This was especially concerning as B appeared to have access to confidential case details, which should have remained restricted. This breach of confidentiality and the dismissive tone of the report represent serious procedural and ethical violations.

When the Worker requested a formal outcome of the Board of Enquiry, she was told there was no obligation under the Employer’s Disciplinary Regulations to keep her informed. This final response, along with the overall handling of her complaint, underscores systemic failures to adhere to the Dignity at Work Policy, statutory obligations, and principles of fairness, respect, and confidentiality.

In conclusion, the Worker’s experience reflects significant shortcomings in the Employer’s response to a serious allegation. Her rights under internal policy and law were not upheld, leaving her marginalised, uninformed, and without resolution.

On 24 January 2023, a Worker reported an incident that occurred on 24 October 2022 to Inspector H, opting initially to resolve the issue through the informal process under the Dignity at Work policy. On 1 February 2023, Inspector H informed the Worker that M had expressed a desire to apologise and put the matter behind him. However, the Worker was dissatisfied with this approach and formally submitted a complaint to the Divisional Officer on 7 February 2023.

The Dignity at Work policy outlines a structured procedure for handling complaints of unacceptable behaviour, including formal investigations to assess the credibility and facts of a complaint. If the complaint is upheld and found to involve a crime or gross misconduct, the matter may be escalated into a criminal or disciplinary process. In this case, considering the serious nature of the complaint and the power imbalance between the Worker and M, the Divisional Officer determined that the issue should be handled under the Employer’s Discipline Regulations, bypassing the Dignity at Work policy entirely.

This decision reflected the gravity of the complaint and facilitated more immediate and serious responses—such as suspension and potential disciplinary sanctions—which would not have been possible under the Dignity at Work framework. Consequently, M was suspended from duty on 17 February 2023, a measure that remained in place throughout the investigation.

The Discipline Regulations enable formal investigation and disciplinary action, including dismissal, against members found in breach. This regulatory framework also allowed the Employer to take swift action in removing M from a supervisory role over the Worker, thereby protecting the Worker’s wellbeing and safeguarding the workplace environment.

On 27 February 2023, the Worker participated in an interview with the appointed Investigating Officer as part of the disciplinary investigation. At this point, the Worker was aware that the complaint was no longer being processed under the Dignity at Work policy. After the initial investigation concluded, the matter advanced to a formal Board of Inquiry as per the Discipline Regulations. While the Worker was invited to attend and potentially provide evidence, the Board later decided that direct testimony from the Worker was unnecessary.

Nonetheless, the Worker’s original written complaint and the transcript of the interview with the Investigating Officer were included in the evidence packet provided to the Board members and were reviewed as part of the inquiry. All Boards of Inquiry are conducted independently and retain the authority to manage their own procedures. Importantly, while the subject of the disciplinary proceedings,  (M), is entitled to be heard, the process does not require direct participation from the complainant.

Throughout the investigation, the Employer emphasised the seriousness with which the complaint was treated and assured the Worker that the matter was being thoroughly investigated in line with the Discipline Regulations. However, the Worker was informed that the outcome of the disciplinary process could not be disclosed, as the regulations mandate confidentiality for the member under investigation.

The Employer clarified that even under the Dignity at Work policy, if the complaint had led to disciplinary proceedings, the Worker would not have been entitled to detailed disclosure of the outcome. They would only be informed whether the complaint had been upheld and whether any further action, such as initiating the Disciplinary Procedure, would be taken.

In summary, the decision to handle the complaint under the Discipline Regulations rather than the Dignity at Work policy was guided by the seriousness of the allegation, the hierarchical relationship between the parties involved, and the need to ensure a safe, fair, and protective working environment for the Worker.

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

In the first instance, I find it reasonable that the Employer chose not to follow the procedures set out in their Dignity at Work Policy, because they considered the Worker’s allegations to be very serious. They also believed, again reasonably in my view, that conducting an initial investigation under the Dignity at Work Policy before proceeding with a further one under the Discipline Regulations would have unnecessarily extended the process for all parties involved.

As well as finding that the Employer acted reasonably, as set out above, I also recognise that a recommendation that the Employer should have investigated the alleged breach of the Dignity at Work Policy before initiating disciplinary proceedings—as opposed to going directly to a hearing, as they did in this instance—could have broader implications and might restrict their ability to take such action in the future.

Considering the foregoing points, I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the Worker.