EDA2681

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047804 (CA-00058210-010)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2011 on 05/06/2024.

Labour Court hearings took place on 21/01/2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of Ocean Palace Chinese Takeaway Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00047804/CA-00058210-010, dated 30 April 2024) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 June 2024. A case management conference was convened on 18 July 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 21 January 2026.

Factual Background

Ms Zoe Murphy (‘the Complainant’) worked as a part-time member of counter staff at the Chinese takeaway premises operated by the Respondent in Navan, Co Meath, from April 2021 until she resigned her employment on 6 August 2023. As of the date of her resignation she was paid a flat rate of €85.00 in cash per shift worked. The Complainant was unemployed for six weeks following her resignation.

There was a conflict of evidence between the Parties in relation to the number of shifts per week the Complainant worked. On her account, she worked 5 shifts in each fortnight, two the first week and three the second week. The Respondent submitted that she always worked a maximum of two shifts per week.

The Respondent’s written submission to the Court included copy payslips. However, it is clear to the Court that these were not issued contemporaneously to the Complainant and do not tally with either Party’s submission in relation to the number of hours worked by the Complainant.

The Claim

The Complainant told the Court that she resigned her employment on 6 August 2023. She said she had very reluctantly attended for work on that date as nobody was available to cover her shift. Her evidence to the Court was that she had been gravely upset following an incident that had occurred at 11.40 pm the previous evening when a chef employed in the takeaway slapped her breasts. The Complainant told the Court that this incident was the culmination of some eighteen months of inappropriate behaviour towards her by the individual in question. He, she said, had become aware from Mr Lin Chen that the Complainant had to have breast surgery in early 2023 following a mammogram. After she returned to work, the chef, she said, regularly addressed the Complainant as ‘Diddy Mamma’ and made frequent references to her ‘diddy milk’. The Complainant exhibited a text message from the chef in question where he wrote ‘See you tomorrow Diddy mama’.

The Complainant said she was so concerned about the manner in which the chef engaged with her that she had arranged for her husband to sit in his car outside the takeaway when she was working late shifts. The Complainant also said that she had reported the chef’s behaviour to Mr Lin Chen and to her Irish colleague. Mr Lin Chen denies that he received any such complaints from the Complainant. It is common case that the Respondent has no written sexual harassment policy in place. Again, Mr Chen said that he told all staff verbally that no sexual harassment would be tolerated.

Mr Lin Chen submitted that the explanation offered by the Complainant for her resignation is a fiction. He said he was given no explanation at the time as to why she decided to terminate her employment. He told the Court initially that the premises had been closed for two weeks at that time as a food safety closure order had been served on it. He then changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that he had stated in his own written submission to the Court that the Complainant resigned on 6 August 2023. He also said that the Complainant’s husband had come to the takeaway after her resignation and had started an argument having accused the chef of having harassed his wife. Mr Lin Chen next said that he later checked the premises’ CCTV to see if there was any evidence there of the alleged sexual harassment incident. He told the Court that he had found no evidence of it. He subsequently, he said attempted to call to see the Complainant at her home and had tried to contact her via email to no avail.

Discussion and Decision

The Court found the Complainant to be a most credible witness. Her evidence was consistent and compelling. The same cannot be said of Mr Lin Chen. His evidence was inconsistent, contradictory and disingenuous. The Court has no doubt but that he was fully informed of the reasons as to why the Complainant felt compelled to resign her employment on 6 August 2023. He was also aware of the ongoing inappropriate language frequently employed by the chef to address the Complainant and failed or neglected to take appropriate action to deal with the situation.

The evidence before the Court establishes that the Complainant was sexually harassed by the chef on 5 August 2023 when he hit her on her breasts and that this egregious event occurred on the back of an extended period during which the Complainant had regularly been the butt of the chef’s sexualised innuendo.

In measuring the compensation for the sexual harassment experienced by the Complainant, the Court has taken note not only of the egregious nature of the sexual harassment that occurred in this case but also of the Respondent’s neglect and failure to put in place a written anti-harassment policy and a procedure for dealing with complaints of harassment and sexual harassment. The Court awards the Complainant one year’s pay by way of compensation under the Act for the effects of the harassment she experienced. The Court measures this at €9,100.00. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AL	______________________
23 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.