Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Company

Representatives

MP Guinness BL instructed by Catherine Hayes Lewis Silkin Ireland

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-00062919-001

18/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00062919-002

18/04/2024

In November 2022 the Complainant began working remotely for the Respondent fintech company from her home in rural Ireland in a customer support capacity. She reported to a team lead Mr X. She took maternity leave from late October 2022 until late July 2023.

On the 24th of January 2024 the Complainant was notified that she was being made redundant with immediate effect. She was one of a number of redundancies which had been ongoing across the company.

In that meeting the Complainant raised allegations related to Mr X. She subsequently raised detailed allegations with employee relations who conducted an investigation in February/March 2024 but did not issued the findings to the Complainant as she had exited the company.

On the 18th of April 2024 the Complainant raised a complaint that she had been discriminated against due to her gender and family status. She alleged that she was sexually harassed, dismissed for discriminatory reasons and dismissed for opposing discrimination.

The Complainant also raised a complaint that she did not receive her redundancy payment however this seems to relate to an ex-gratia payment she did not receive because she would not sign the associated compromise agreement.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation.

She had joined the Company in November 2021, Mr X became her line manager in June 2022. Throughout her time in the company she was working exclusively from her home in rural Ireland.

Her evidence regarding Mr X began from July 2022 when she let him know she was pregnant. In this conversation he began speaking about “part-time mummies” and asking if she was returning full time. She had to tell him on multiple occasions that she was, He referred to children as the “f-ing worst” which was not the sort of thing she wanted to hear as an expecting mother.

Soon after this conversation the first round of lay-offs in the company occurred. A friend working for the Respondent was dismissed. The Complainant was really upset. She kept getting invited into a meeting with Mr Xwhich she tried to avoid because she was terrified she was going to lose her job. Mr X did ask if I was okay and acknowledged it was a huge shock.  The Complainant explained that she was upset and his response was that she should take it on the chin, get her hormones in check and that she won’t be laid off because she is “preggers.”

She didn’t feel her job was safe after that.

The comments continued before her maternity leave. Mr X kept bringing up whether she was returning. pregnancy hormones and whether they would affect her husband. He told her that she looked knackered in a conversation just before maternity leave and questioned whether she should be working.

The Complainant returned to work in July 2023. In the meantime everyone moved from different teams but she continued to work directly under Mr X. Their first meeting back on the 1st of August he said welcome back “mama bear or would you prefer milf?”.  

The Complainant was upset and had thought maybe the comments would stop on her return.

At this point she confided in a team member who was shocked about it.  

Things got worse when Mr X referred to the fact that he would be in an nearby town. He invited her to come for a drink to “Make her feel good and make the husband jealous.”

At this point she had enough and said he was crossing a line and that it was misconduct. Mr X responded that he was only joking.  The Complainant works from home remotely and views her home as being her safe haven. The fact that these things were said in her home with her child sitting playing nearby was really upsetting.  

Mr X continued to make sexist comments and comments that referred to her potentially getting pregnant again into the new year.

The Complainant accepts that she was accommodated in coming back to work and she was given lots of training time to catch up on changes. She enjoyed learning.

On the 24th of January she was made redundant. It was in that meeting that she first informed the Respondent of incidences that had occurred.

The Complainant was cross examined by counsel for the Respondent.

She accepts that she didn’t tell Ms A, the person who told her she was being made redundant,  that she was recording the meeting. She didn’t normally record meetings she recorded on other meeting where Mr X said she would not get a impact/performance review in November. Ms A did tell her the redundancy was not performance related.

She accepts this was the first time she raised the issue with the Company but does not accept that the dismissal was unrelated.  She had said to Mr X in August that his behaviour was unacceptable  and then said in December that she would look to change teams.

The Complainant then began corresponding with both Ms A and Ms B, a Senior Employee Relations Manager, on her exit payment and her complaint. The Company sought to keep both separate and for the Complainant to sign a standard exit agreement which would have compromised any claims around Mr X’s actions. The Complainant accepts that she sought a better redundancy package and threatened these proceedings and to go to the media.

The Complainant then sought updates from the Respondent who generally refused to provide detailed information regarding their now ongoing investigation into her allegations. In April they sent her an email clarifying that they had reviewed and investigated the matter but she would not receive a formal closure letter.

The Complainant was referred to text messages she had exchanged with Mr X and accepts that these are positive. She only directly challenged Mr X once and he had just said that it was a joke.

She is aware of the Company policies regarding harassment.

She made it clear in January that she wanted to move to another team

She was paid her statutory redundancy just not the ex-gratia sum related to the compromise agreement.

The Respondent made written and oral submissions. They submit that the Complainant’s allegations only emerged after they had confirmed her redundancy as part of a wider redundancy campaign which was ongoing at that time. She then threatened the Respondent with media exposure and litigation and sought to negotiate a higher exit package.

The Respondent conducted their own investigation into her allegations and did not find that they occurred.

Ms B gave evidence under affirmation. She is a Senior Employee Releations specialist who has been with the Respondent for 2 and a half years.

They have numerous anti-harrassment and conduct polices. Each team lead is trained on them and there is regular refresher trainings.

The Janaury 2024 redundancies were part of a restructuring involving ongoing redundancies. Ms B was first involved after the Complainant has raised a complaint in her meeting where she was told she was being made redundant.

She wrote to her asking for more information and thanking her for bringing these to her attention.

She interviewed Mr X and his skip level Ms C. Mr X denied the allegations. He presented very clearly and credibly. He provided whatsapp and slack messages.

The Complainant never provided any contemporaneous notes.

Ms C wasn’t aware of any issues and had never had any similar complaints made about Mr X.

Mr X accepted that he had used a nickname to refer to the Complainant but was clear she had never raised any issue related to this. Ms B made a recommendation that he should not be using nicknames without explicit consent. 

Ms B confirmed that the Complainant was not given a pay review/impact review in November 2023 as the employee had to be working for 51% of the impact review period March 2023- September 2023. The Complainant was on maternity leave for nearly all of this period.  

In April 2024 Ms B issued an email to let the Complainant know she had concluded the investigation and that the Respondent would not disclose any more information due to her no longer being an employee.

The Complainant then provided extra documentation and detail to the WRC in making this complaint. Ms B investiged these additional allegations and Mr X disputed them.

In particular she had referred to Ms D who she spoke to after the meeting on the 1st of August where Mr X was alleged to have called her a MILF. The Complainant alleges that she recounted this to Ms D. Ms D was very positive about Mr X in general but confirmed that the Complainant had raised the MILF comment with her.

Ms B was cross examined by the Complainant.

Ms B provided more detail on how impact reviews work. There are no off cycle reviews. The reviews happen every 6 months give or take. Review period in question March to September 2023 and the Complainant needed to be working to be reviewed. Mr X has no discretion as to this.

Ms C was clear that Mr X didn’t have any previous issues raised about his conduct. She would have been aware of any disciplinary issues, investigations or complaints.

Ms B provided further information on the Complainant’s stats at work. These related to the goals set by Mr X.

Ms B provided evidence as to the redundancy process in general, team leads like Mr X have no role in selection and are only informed after a selection. It is sually a skip level lead or director level who make the decision. She does not have any information about the Complainant’s selection.

The Complainant made two sets of allegations related to Mr X. The first set were outlined in an email on the 5th of February just after she was informed she was being made redundant.

This email started that she was comfortable only sharing a few examples and that all notes regarding all incidents were with her solicitor.

“14th of July 2022

I informed my Team Lead that I was expecting a baby and that I would expect to commence Maternity Leave in Late October/Early November 2022 approx. My Team Lead responded with "So was this planned or an accident?". I said that I'd been married for almost 3 years now so it was inevitable that family would be the next step. I was shocked, and I feel, visibly uncomfortable discussing this with a man. He then responded "Ugh kids are the f*cking worst" while rubbing his forehead. I was uncomfortable with this statement and responded with "Well they're not for everyone but I'm excited" and then changed the subject.

At the end of this conversation, my Team Lead asked "So how long are you off on your holidays...ehh sorry...Maternity Leave" and used air quotes when saying "Maternity Leave". I said I wasn't sure but I think the standard 22 or 26 weeks and then annual leave accrued. He responded

"You women have it so good, it's a woman's world. Keep having babies and you'll never be fired. Must have been a woman that made that law". I said "It'd be pretty cruel to sack someone just for having a child". He asked "So you're deffo coming back? Childcare's hard to get and expensive". I advised that I will definitely be returning, can't afford not to. He responded "Ok, well, we'll see". Meeting ended. I became upset after this meeting and felt like being pregnant seemed like an inconvenience.

JULY 26TH 2022:

After losing colleagues to a layoff, I was extremely upset. My Team Lead pulled me into a meeting, started off sympathetic saying "It's a huge shock to us all, you ok?". I said I was devastated forthose who had been laid off. He responded "Take it on the chin, get your emotions in check and sort those hormones out. It doesn't affect you anyways cos you're "preggers" so they can't lay you off". This made me feel like I would have been considered for layoff had I not been pregnant. This also made me feel like I would have to tread on eggshells around my Team Lead to keep my job safe.

SEPTEMBER 9TH 2022:

- My Team Lead asked if my pregnancy hormones were causing "the husband" to work late

- Team Lead said "pregnant women are 'hot'....sorry 'beautiful' to be politically correct"

OCTOBER 14TH 2022:

My Team Lead asked again if I was definitely returning to Respondent after Maternity Leave. Again, I said I was definitely returning. He told me Respondent doesn't do Part-time for mummies". I told him that I know it's full time or nothing as our colleague was returning to college and tried to request part-time shifts instead and was told this would not be possible so he left his employment with (the Respondent). My Team Lead asked if I was going to do the same. I said "No, not working doesn't pay the bills". He then responded "Nah but rich husbands do so you're ok". I changed the subject.

JULY 25TH 2023:

Returned to work after Maternity Leave. Attended a meeting with Team Lead where he greeted me with "Welcome back Mama Bear or would you prefer MILF?". I responded with "I'd prefer (Complainant) so what's new?". My Team Lead discussed AI briefly and said "AI is taking over. This will mean job losses continuously". I do feel that this statement was in an effort to provoke a reaction as he continuously referred to AI resulting in job losses throughout the conversation.

1ST AUGUST 2023:

My Team Lead asked how I was finding training. I said it was quite overwhelming seeing how many changes happened collectively in Respondent in less than a year but I'm making lots of notes and getting to grips with everything.

He responded "Well ( nickname for Complainant), keep your knees together and you won't be off for months and playing catch up again". (I had requested on at least 8 occasions that I would not be called “nickname”). I was visibly shocked by this crude and inappropriate comment and didn't respond. My Team Lead asked what my key takeaway points were from training so far and the conversation continued. My Team Lead asked if I have any holidays planned for the rest of the year. I said that I do have annual leave to take but nothing planned yet. He said he might be in (nearby town) sometime over the next few weeks when taking his additional leave from Respondent (after 5yrs accrued) as his wife is from (nearby town) and that I should meet him for a drink as it'll make me "feel good" and "the husband might get jealous, haha". I said that I don't drink now that I have a baby and my Team Lead responded "well I'm just saying, ya know". Once again referenced AI resulting in job losses. I told my team lead that he was crossing a line and asked if he was aware that all of this is regarded as sexual misconduct in the workplace aswell as commenting on my pregnancy and post partum. He replied "Jesus Christ matey, I'm only joking. It's just banter between workmates".

Reprimanding my Team Lead made no difference and the inappropriate comments and behaviour continued. These are just a few examples of the behaviour that I've encountered with this person in a superior role to mine.

Also in November 2023, I queried my Impact Review as my Team Lead had discussed this with other team members but we were yet to discuss this even though I had submitted my "Self Reflection". I was told I would not be receiving an impact review because I had been on Maternity Leave for a small part of the review period. I asked if this would mean that I wouldn't be eligible for a payrise. My team lead confirmed that I would not be eligible for a payrise. I asked if I could please be impact reviewed for the duration I had been back at work after Maternity Leave. Again, I was refused the Impact Review. This interaction was recorded by myself on a secondary device.

Please note I also received an email that invited me to submit feedback for my Team Leads review. I did not submit feedback. My reasons for this were that it didn't feel safe to share honest feedback and I didn't feel comfortable lying and therefore felt that not submitting any information was the safest course of action as I feared for my job.

After returning from Maternity Leave, I made it very clear that my goal was to either progress to an escalated role within (the Respondent) or to change teams. I was very clear and honest about this with my team lead and used my Professional Development time to work on researching the steps I could take in preparation for progression to another team. Even 1 hour before my redundancy on 24th January 2024, I spoke about my goal to progress to another team in our team time workshop.

I also spoke with Team members less than a week before my redundancy about being uncomfortable after an interaction I'd encountered with a merchant based in Israel. I would like to advise that I remained professional in the interaction and of course resolved the merchant's query and they left the interaction happy. I spoke about being uncomfortable about Respondent's stance at suspending subscription charges for merchants in Israel only and not supporting Palestine and that this favouritism in a genocide didn't sit well with me and that I'd be happier to see Respondent suspending subscriptions for both locations affected. The team members in the interaction aligned with the feeling I'd expressed. Do Respondent merchants in all supported countries know of Respondent's support for Israel? I would believe that this favoritism in a case of genocide isn't something a lot of merchants would align with and not something they may want their stores associated with or seen to support but where is the transparency for them merchants who keep the Respondent in business? Do Respondent merchants know that Respondent supports Israel in this genocide?

Has this been discussed publicly?

I also believe that many stores wouldn't want an association with a platform that doesn't reprimand perpetrators of sexual harassment towards staff members.

Im aware that this is not the first situation whereby a Team Lead has acted inappropriately towards Team Members.

I'm aware that a friend of my Team Lead, Mr F had numerous accusations of bullying made towards him, had Team members request to be moved to other teams, some of whom were then "coincidentally" laid off, one instance where he had took a member of his team (who had been drinking) back to his room at Summit 2022 in (town) and another instance where he was caught sending inappropriate messages on slack to a team member.

Instead of being reprimanded for this behaviour, he was moved to a lead role of equal or greater value in the QA team. For this reason, I was scared to raise an issue about what I had encountered. Respondent seems to have set a precedence for women not being protected from unwelcome attention such as this in their workplace and instead, appear to almost reward the perpetrator.

For this reason, reporting the horrendous encounters with my Team Lead felt like I wouldn't have been protected and nothing would be done to protect me from this. I also feared for my job as my Team Lead made it abundantly clear that job losses were a danger to us because of AI and as these layoffs are "random" and "not personal", I was afraid that I would fall victim to a layoff for raising an issue. I would also like to point out that my Team Lead has access to my home address and has family in a town 20mins away from me.

Even now, I don't feel safe as (nearby town) is where I would socialise with my husband and friends, where I visit alone and where I go at least weekly to do shopping. I'm not visiting (nearby town) scared that I will bump into the Team Lead who will be angry that I've shared this information so even though I am not with the Respondent, the fear continues.

I also wish to advise that I have been approached by media representatives regarding my layoff and while I have advised that I'm not currently in a position to discuss anything but would retain their information and make contact should this change, I do feel that there are issues that, should the Respondent fail to address and improve these, would need to be publicly highlighted.

I would also like to reiterate that while this investigation is ongoing, I do not feel comfortable signing this Compromise

Agreement and think that it requires review.

Kind regards,

Complainant”

The second set of complaints were made in April 2024 in the Complainant’s referral to the WRC. While most of these were the same as the above there were some additions.

These allegations were made alongside a covering letter dated the 15th of April 2024

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am contactang regarding an issue I wish to engage the assistance of the Work Relations Commission for an issue with a previous employer if possible please.

I have encountered ongoing Sexual Harassment from my Team Leader, (Mr X) during my employment with (the Respondent). Please note that my role with this company was remote and all interactions with my Team Lead were via Google Meet. I have enclosed notes of dates and details. I hope that these notes contain enough detail for an investigation. I raised this issue on the day I was made redundant from my role. I chose to disclose the information then, as the fear of losing my job as a repercussion of raising it sooner had then been removed when I was made redundant from my role. When I asked if Ms A (Respondent's Senior Lead for Work Force Planning) would like dates and details regarding my allegations of sexual harassment, she declined. She was not willing to discuss the issue raised at all but wouldn't direct me as to where I should raise this issue. I have faced a continuous battle trying to resolve this directly with (the Respondent) as no one wants to know about what I've encountered and no one wants to help find a resolution.

I was later informed that an investigation had taken place, which I do not believe as they didn't have all details to conduct a thorough investigation and refused to disclose their findings. This has affected my feelings of safety when I leave my home and diminished my self confidence and have since suffered episodes of crippling anxiety and panic which has resulted in me only leaving my home when absolutely necessary.

I'm scared to speak to a GP about medication for this anxiety as l'm concerned it will affect my capabilities as a mother and main caregiver to my l6month old baby. A man being able to speak to me in such a manner in my own home leaves me fearful of encountering this again, with the same man or someone else. I'm desperately seeking closure for this matter so that I can try to build my confidence again.

lf there are any furher details required, please do not

hesitate to contact me on

Kind regards,

(the Complainant)

The Comaplainant provided a series of typed typed complaints, arranged in date and contained new allegations as well as the ones she made to the Respondent in February. In a later email to the WRC on the 13th of May the Complainant outlined that all notes had been submitted with this complaint.

The Complainant related to the 14th of July was the same but drafted as if it was a contemporaneous note.

A further allegation is made related to the 5th of August 2022

“This meeting has gone OK for the most part because I was cautious as I felt like I was afraid to speak and put my job in jeopardy.(Mr X) asked towards the end of today's meeting "So how many kids are you going having then? I said "l'm not sure, it's not something l've thought too much about just yet."

Mr X then asked "Do you not speak to your husband about this stuff?" I responded "Of course but it's changeable for lots of reasons, especially finances". He them asked what my husband's work is. I responded "Farmer and Agri Contractor." He then asked if it's my husband's own business and I replied that it is. Mr X responded "Your husband's got his own business. You should quit work and be a housewife and then you can have as many kids as you want, he must be minted."

I responded 'Absolutely not, having your own business usually means the total opposite." I changed the subject and asked for guidance on what goals I need to work on for our next 1:1 as I didn't want to continue speaking about my own personal business, I felt like I was not wanted in this workplace and that my being pregnant was an inconvenience, felt like my job was in jeopardy.”

The Complainant added further allegations to the 9th of September 2022.

“Mr X asked if I was looking forward to being a 'Milf" Mr X asked if I'm definitely returning after maternity leave (again) I advised that I definitely will be returning (again) and he responded "OK cool, we'll see how you get on when you return"

We discussed remaining annual leave to be used along with personal time.”

The Complainant added further allegations related to the 28th of September and 25th of October 2025.

“28th of September 2022

Mr X organised an "MTV cribs" style event where we were required to video our homes/personal space and show this to the group. I asked if it was compulsory to take part as we are painting and redecorating our entire home and building baby equipment and furniture as lm due 6weeks. I explained my home was a mess and would rather not show my team mates the mess as it's embarrassing. Mr X asked 'Are you a team player?" I explained that of course I am but as I'm heavily pregnant it's both a lot of heavy lifting and a lot of work to put everything away just to take a video and then resume with redecorating and building furniture. [Mr X] told me to "get out the duster and get the gaf looking presentable" and "team players keep jobs".

25th of October 2022

- finished today and commenced Maternity Leave

- Mr X said "No offence (nickname for Complainant) but you look knackered, can you even properly do your job that tired". Reminded him l'm over I months pregnant and tiredness is normal but I actually felt fine. Pushed me to take personaltime and start maternity leave a day early.”

The Complainant put in an additional point regarding the 1st of August 2023 just after she returned from maternity leave.

“1st of August 2023

Meeting started with smalltalk

- Mr X talked about being in Portugal on a lads golfing trip earlier in the year. He said they went to a bar after dinner one evening. He saw a drunk girl in the smoking area alone, drunk and eyes rolling. He said he could have "done anything to her" but he doesn't take advantage of women unless they "ask nicely". I asked if he got help for her. He said he told a bouncer to call an ambulance and it was his problem the. As he was walking away, her boyfriend appeared and "got mad jealous I was near his missus" and started getting sick everywhere. [Mr X] said he felt like punching the man's lights out for staring at him.

- Once again referenced Al and job losses

- I asked about the characteristics and differences between how Async and Emails should appear. Mr X talked around the topic but would not give a direct answer. I asked this question 3 times, still unclear as no answer given”

The Complainant also raised that she had mentioned the MILF comment to a colleague Ms D on the 18th of August. This interaction was confirmed by Ms D in interview with Ms B.

The Complainant also raised an additional series of alleged incidents from the 8th of September right up until her termination.

8th September 2023

Team time with members

Mr X mentioned using a future team to update our CV's and discover skills that can be applicable to future roles outside of (the Respondent). This caused concern within the team for more layoffs. As far as I am aware, Mr X has not qualified for giving CV advice.

25th October 2023

1:1 with Mr X = 12.30pm-13.1 5pm – Mr X arrived late

- appeared to be in a bad mood, no hello or small talk

- asked if I'd seen my smiley rating, told me it was 25"to and asked if there was context that needed to be considered ie. Was the frownie unwarranted due to angry merchant even though I had completed my job as support advisor correctly but as the outcome is perhaps unfavourable for a merchant such as criteria not being met for refunds etc, a negative review had been left?

- Mr X got defensive and said they needed to be improved.

ASAP. 4 smileys: 1 smiley,2 frownies, 1 neutral Both frownies and the neutral, lfelt, were unwarranted as there's nothing further I could have done for the merchants as I was adhering to (Respondent’s) rules. Mr X didn't research this, I believe, and got defensive when I asked.

11th January - 1.30pm – 2pm

Mr X joined meeting at 1.40pm Mr Xjoined the meeting and small talk was made for approx. 2mins when Mr X says "Push down your camera a sec there (nickname)". As I'd taken a drink from my cup, I lowered the camera and held up my cup. Mr X then said "You can put it  back now justwondered what you were wearing". I was shocked by this and said "Excuse me?". (Just for context, I was wearing a black long sleeve, round neck dress that was not low-cut. As I was sitting down, only the upper half of the dress could be seen). Mr X changed the subject to SMART goals and asked if l'd completed mine.

Towards the end of the meeting, Mr X asked how my Christmas was. I responded "quiet" and he said "You've a bit of an after Christmas glow, you're not pregnant again are you?". I was shocked and responded "No, why?". He replied "Thank god for that, you're only back".

16th January 2024

- mentioned that I had an unwell baby at home today

- Mr X asked if my son was normally in childcare and I explained that I don't currently have childcare as my previous arrangements fell through

- Mr X’s demeanor changed after this and he snapped at any questions I asked about using my Professional Development time to research and prep for any roles that may arise. Over this meeting and the last, I made it clear that my goal was to leave this Team for another role within (the Respondent) and would apply for any role that may arise

- Mr X asked how my cv was looking, unsure what he meant by this but I responded "it hasn't been updated since 2021 when I started this role". He responded "Hmmm we'll need to work on that, won't we?".

Ahead of the hearing into these matters the Complainant submitted some further documentation alongside a covering letter on the 18th of June 2024.

“Hi there,

I hope this email finds you well.

I have been requested to submit all additional material prior to my July 3rd hearing. Please find   attached the material I wish to submit. (Screenshots of emails with HR etc at Respondent and one   screenshot of an example of how the Team Lead speaks about females. For background context, the  15 year old daughter of the team lead was placed in ICU after falling ill with meningitis and when  colleagues shared concern for her and wishes of health, the team lead referred to the 15yr old as "off  her t*ts" on pain medication. While all of my upsetting encounters were verbal and in 1:1 meetings  with my Team Lead, I hope that this perhaps may explain the manner in which he discusses women  including minors/his daughter).

If you require any further information, please let me know.

Kind regards,

(The Complainant)”

It appears the Complainant remained in her team whatsapp group after her termination and on the 13th of February screenshotted a message from Mr X to the group which said:

“She’s a little fighter (broken heart emoji) (praying emoji) off her tits on painkillers for most of today. Which was distressing and slightly amusing at the same time – shite she was coming out with!) but we got some smiles and craic out of her today which was encouraging (heart emoji) One day at a time x”

I do feel I need to point out that the Complainant’s representation of this text message is obviously inaccurate and inappropriate. While Mr X’s language was crude it was not in any way derogatory towards his daughter.

The Complainant also attached her email correspondence with HR which was reviewed during her cross examination above.

In the course of this process the Respondent has provided the interview transcripts of Mr X’s interviews where he denies the allegations repeatedly and emphatically. Ms B’s investigation also involved interviewing Mr X’s team lead Ms C who was clear Mr X had never had any sort of similar complaint made against him and Ms D who was another direct report and had never witnessed any sort of similar behaviour from Mr X.

Mr X did provide all meeting records he had related to the alleged interactions such as the calender invites and the meeting notes and outcomes as well as text message exchanges. In these he is using the nickname the Complainant says she had challenged him on without her taking issue with this.  The exchanges are friendly and supportive. 

The text exchange after the Complainant was dismissed was

“Jeez what a thing to come back from lunch from (sad emoji) never got a chance to say goodbye even! Hope ur OK as you possibly can be. Hope you got a few quid and find a new role as soon as you try. You have losts of amazing skills to offer. Best of luck my friend (heart emoji)”

The Complainant’s response was “Thank you. All I feel is relief, I actually interviewed for 2 Civil Service jobs that are also remote so I’m not worrying at all thankfully. Best of wishes to you all in the future”

CA-00062919-001 – Complaints under the Employment Equality Acts

Referring back to the complaints before me I note that there are essentially two complaints under the Employment Equality Acts (“EEA”) related to gender and family status discrimination.

The first relates to a claim of discriminatory dismissal.

Section 8 of the EEA prohibits discrimination by employers and subsection 6 provides that an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of whom he or she is one—

…..

(c) the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary measures,

There is no evidence that more senior management of the Respondent knew about the behaviour the Complainant has alleged. They were unaware of this until after they made the decision to dismiss her.

The Respondent’s evidence that team leaders are not notified of redundancies until after the fact and do not generally have any input into selection and it does appear as if team lead is quite a junior role in the Respondent. The text messages provided show Mr X communicating that he is surprised and shocked to discover that the Complainant was made redundant.

As such I see no prima facia case that the Complainant’s selection for redundancy was anything to do with her interactions with Mr X, particularly in circumstances where there were ongoing redundancies within the business.

In the circumstances the allegation that the Complainant was dismissed for discriminatory reasons does not succeed.

The Complainant has also maintained a complaint of sexual harassment which is also considered discrimination under the EEA. Section 14A subsection 7.a.ii of the EEA provides that references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

The conduct of Mr X which the Complainant refers to obviously falls within this definition.

While the Respondent does dispute that this conduct occurred and did conduct their own internal investigation which did not uphold the Complainant’s allegations, they have not sought to directly challenge the Complainant’s evidence with Mr X’s in the hearing.

Instead they have relied on the defence provided at Section 14A (2) which states that: If harassment or sexual harassment of the victim by a person other than his or her employer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as discrimination by the employer under subsection (1), it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable—(a) in a case where subsection (1)(a) applies (whether or not subsection (1)(b) also applies), to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim or any class of persons which includes the victim….

This defence is further outlined in Section 15(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.

This defence was considered in the case of A Hotel v. A Worker, EDA0915, where the Labour Court found that for the employer to avail of the defence their anti-harassment or dignity at work policy must be effectively communicated to all and that management must be trained in how to deal with incidents of harassment and how to recognise it.

Ms B was able to provide evidence of exactly such measures. The Respondent have detailed policies which prohibits sexual harassment and which management are trained on regularly. Mr X’s own training records as a team lead were provided in evidence.

When the Complainant raised allegations the Respondent did investigate them in a reasonably thorough manner and Ms B appeared to me to be very credible witness and thorough investigator.

The Complainant accepts that she was aware of the policy and had access to it. While she has outlined she didn’t want to raise a complaint for fear of losing her job she has pointed to no specific reason why the Respondent, a large multi-national, would have retaliated against the Complainant for raising a complaint against a team lead. I note their policy provides the HR partner as point of contact and advice and allows employees to raise informal complaints with them, any leads or the legal department. The Complainant was not restricted to raising the issues with Mr X as her lead. Indeed if she wanted to proceed to a formal complaint she had to raise it directly with the Senior Vice President of HR. There are also anti-retaliation provisions outlined in the policy and as discussed above it is not clear how Mr X was supposed to be able to cause the Complainant’s dismissal if he wanted to particularly with the level of oversight a formal complaint would have created.  

In any event, the Respondent took steps which were reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment and therefore is not liable for the sexual harassment alleged to have been perpetrated by Mr X against the Complainant.  

CA-00062919-002 – Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act

The Complainant accepts that she received a redundancy payment as required by Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act.

CA-00062919-001

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00062919-002

I find that the complaint is not well founded.