Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Security Worker

A Security Company

Representatives

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 - 00006417

24/02/2026

The worker commenced employment with the employer in July 2022. She is employed in security/reception duties.  The employer is a large security company.

The complaint alleges a failure by management to address workplace and harassment procedures effectively.

The worker stated that in December 2024, a colleague had tried to kiss her.  She immediately moved away from him.  She also reported the incident to her supervisor; the supervisor spoke to the perpetrator and told him that his behaviour was unacceptable. She said at the hearing that it was particularly unacceptable as she is a married woman and of the Muslim faith. There had been other comments of a sexualised and insulting manner made by the same man to the worker previously.

The worker says she emailed her manager about the matter but when she returned to work on 3 January 2025, the incident was not mentioned. She went to her manager to raise the matter and a meeting was arranged between the worker and her colleague.  During that meeting the worker forgave the colleague. He subsequently sent her an email apologising for his actions.

Another incident took place in August 2025, involving the same man and the worker.  The worker stated that when she came to her work area there was a poster up to which she took offence as she felt the comment on the poster was directed at her. She raised the matter with her supervisor, who said there was nothing wrong with the poster, he said she was being too sensitive.  However, the colleague took down the poster. Subsequently, another poster appeared which again the worker found offensive and directed at her. She raised this with her manager but she was not happy with the way the matter was dealt with by her superiors.

In February 2026, the worker came into work to find the colleague in question, sitting in her chair in the room which she was scheduled to work. She had previously asked that she not be in the same room as that particular colleague. She could not countenance staying in work and she went home on sick leave. 

The worker does not believe her employer conducted a proper or formal investigation into the matter. She was not informed of any investigation process, findings or outcome.  She believes her complaint was not dealt with in accordance with appropriate workplace procedures.

The situation has caused the worker significant anxiety and distress and has affected her ability to work normally. She believes her employer failed in its duty to provide a safe working environment following her complaint of sexual harassment.

The worker is looking for compensation for the shifts she missed as a result of this matter and measures to be put in place to ensure a safe and respectful workplace for everyone.

The employer submits that it acted fairly and responsibly at all times in relation to the matter raised by the worker.

The employer puts forward that an incident occurred in December 2024, when a colleague of the worker attempted to engage in an uninvited hug and cheek kiss with the worker as a “Christmas greeting”. Upon notification of the incident the site manager acted instantly; he instructed the Supervisor to monitor both parties and offered the worker the right to leave the site early if distressed. He immediately altered schedules to ensure the colleague who had initiated the hug and kiss was not rostered on the worker’s subsequent shifts.

On 3 January 2025, a formal intervention meeting was facilitated by the site manager.  An informally agreed on-site arrangement was put in place; a practical understanding that both parties would remain physically separated, would not be rostered together and would cease direct engagement. Following this the colleague wrote an apology to the worker on 4 January 2025, taking full accountability, which effectively completed the informal stage.

Regarding the matter of the posters, the employer submits that when the matter was raised it was investigated and it was found that the posters were facility maintenance reminders and not directed at the worker.  However, the colleague was instructed to take them down as unauthorised posters could not be posted without management clearance.

Regarding the incident when the worker entered the room in which she was due to work and found the colleague in question sitting in her seat.  This matter was investigated and it was caused by an isolated administrative misunderstanding caused by a third-party employee.

The employer believes it acted reasonably and immediately within the spirit of fair procedures regarding all these matters.

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

In relation to the preliminary matter raised by the employer concerning time limits I have decided that I can proceed with issuing a recommendation on this dispute. Section 41 of the WRA 2015 is not applicable as the IR Act 1990 is not in Schedule 5 or Schedule 6 of the WRA 2015, more latitude is allowed under the IR Act, I also take into account the continuation of matters after the initial incident of December 2024.

Although no formal investigation was carried out by the employer into the incident of December 2024, it was subject to an informal process which could loosely be described as mediation.  This process resulted in the matter being resolved, by her own acceptance the worker said she forgave her colleague.  She did not pursue the matter further as was her right. Some measures were put in place as precautions. Subsequent events were looked at by the employer and did not merit a formal investigation, again the worker did not pursue the matter.

I therefore am of the opinion that the employer acted reasonably in this matter.

Notwithstanding the above, I found the worker to be credible in her description of the impact all these things had on her and that at times she felt she had no option other than to go out sick.  She therefore suffered a loss due to her non-attendance at work. 

In the circumstances, I recommend the employer pay the worker €1,000 to compensate her for her loss of pay over the period in question.

Investigation, informal procedures