EDA2678

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00050256 (CA-00061714-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 2 September 2024.

Labour Court hearings took place on 1 April, 22 May,19, 20 August and 26 November 2025.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

The matter before the Court is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer decision (Adj-00050256, CA-00061714-001, dated 23 August 2024) in a complaint made by an employee against her former employer under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (“the Act”).

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded.

A Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 29 August 2024. An application made by the employee to have the hearing held in private and the decision anonymised was granted by the Court, due to the sensitive nature of a linked appeal which included allegations of sexual harassment.

The employee had legal representation at a virtual hearing conducted on 1 April 2025 which was adjourned after the appeal opened due to technical difficulties.  The employee represented herself as a lay litigant at a hybrid hearing conducted on 22 May 2025. That hearing was adjourned due to technical difficulties. The appeal and two linked appeals EDA2680 and TED2622 were concluded over three days on 19 and 20 August 2025 and 26 November 2025.

Linked appeals lodged under the Employment Equality Act,1998, Payment of Wages Acts, 1991, and Protection of Employees (fixed-Term Work) act, 2003, were withdrawn by the Complainant after the hearing of 1 April 2024.

The parties are referred to in this Decision as they were at first instance. Hence, the employee is referred to as “the Complainant” and the former employer is referred to as “the Respondent.”

1. Submission and evidence from the Complainant – summary

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation.

The Complainant was dismissed for opposing discrimination and sexual harassment. The employer failed to put appropriate measures in place to stop harassment and sexual harassment from occurring. The Complainant line manager participated in some of the conversations and even laughed about it with other employees.

On 15 September 2023 a colleague, Mr McD., who was training the Complainant asked her “if he should just come over”. This statement followed earlier comments made by Mr McD, that “he wants to do it the right way” and “but I am the one who is giving you training” when he thought someone else will ask me out. On 18 September 2023, Mr McD, yelled at the Complainant for no reason and ran out of the office. He falsely accused the Complainant of making him uncomfortable when they were just discussing work.

On 19 September2023, the Complainant sought a meeting with her manager, Mr S., to discuss Mr McD’s behaviour and that of other colleagues who had locked her in the company property on purpose. Mr S. changed the meeting to an unofficial probation review meeting and awarded the Complainant poor performance grades. Mr S. told the Complainant that she should keep quiet and keep my head down in the office as a threat that I should not proceed with the complaint to the HR department in the UK.

The Complainant completed all tasks assigned by the end of September. By the time of her three-month probation there were no errors in the Complainant’s role. She was working overtime and independently. She overheard comments, when on her way home on the Luas, that she was going to be fired for having an inappropriate interest in a colleague.  She spoke with her manager again and told him that it was not true and that the colleague had misunderstood her comments.

The Complainant was invited to a Formal Probation Review meeting on 4 October 2023. Her manager, Mr S, said that he had to fire her as colleagues did not want to work with her. The Complainant was fired because multiple employees in the company were not happy with their positions in the company, when the company changed ownership and they were overlooked.

The Complainant lodged a grievance on 5 October 2023, but her complaint of harassment and sexual harassment was not investigated. The Complainant was dismissed on 6 October 2023 for opposing sexual harassment and harassment in the workplace, without fair procedures.

2. Position of the Respondent – summary

The Complainant was employed at on a 12-month fixed term contract in the role of Accounts Payable Specialist in the finance department. She commenced employment on 12 June 2023. The Complainint did not successfully pass her probationary period due to performance and conduct issues. Her employment was terminated on 4 October 2023 following a formal performance review process, in line with her contract of emplyment.

The Complainint reported to Mr S., Financial Controller. She did not perform well in her role. Mr S.spoke to her on a number of occasions informally about her performance.

On 15 September 2023, the Complainant attended an informal probation review meeting with Mr S. where he identified four out of six areas of her work that needed improvement: (i) Quality and accuracy of work; (ii) Efficiency; (iii) Work relationships; and (iv) Competency in the role. Mr S. observed that certain issues arose on a recurring basis and the Complainant had not demonstrated an ability to apply learnings from a previous issues.  He advised the Complainant that training would continue. The probation review form was signed by both the Complainant and Mr S on 19 September 2023. The next review was set for 26 September 2023, was pushed to 4 October 2023 for operational reasons. 

On 4 October 2023, the Complainant attended a Formal Probationary Review Meeting. She declined to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative. Mr S. noted that the Complainant still required a significant amount of assistance which, after four months in the role, should not have been necessary. Her work was not completed in a timely manner and she worked additional hours at her own behest, which should not have been necessary.

Mr S. also raised concerns with the Complainant about her interactions with colleagues. The Complainant’s behaviour was perceived by them as aggressive. By way of example, talking over them and not listening when they were trying to help and train her. Mr S.also raised an issue relating to a colleague who had to leave the offce following an incident with the Complainant feel uncomfortable.

The employment contract was terminated on 4 October 2023 as she had failed to successfully complete her probationary period. That decision was confirmed in writing on 6 October 2024.

Following the termination of her employment, on 5 October 2023 the Complainant submitted a five-page grievance alleging that she had been subjected to bullying, discrimination, an unreasonable workload and unfair treatment by her manager. She added to these allegations by email on 6, 7 and 9 October 2023. The grievance was fully investigated by Mr R, Sales Director. By letter dated 3 November 2023, Mr R., confirmed that the majority of the alleations made were not upheld. An allegation that comments were made about her being romantically interested in a colleague was upheld. The Complainant appealled the outcome. By letter dated 12 December 2023 Mr F, Purchasing Director, concluded that the appeal was not upheld.

The Respondent rejects any assertion that the Complainant was dismissed for a discriminatory reason or for opposing discrimination. The Complainant has not articulated any discrimination she has purportedly experienced. No complaint of sexual harassment and/or harassment was made by the Complainant. She has not established any facts of sexual harassment or harassment whatsoever. The Complainant herself alleges in her WRC complaint form that she was dismissed for performance or misconduct reasons. The Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof in relation to her allegation of discrimination.

4             Testimony

The Court heard testimony from two witnesses on behalf of the Respondent – Mr S., a Financial Controller and Ms N, HR Director. 

Evidence of Mr. S – Financial Controller

Mr S. was the Complainant’s line manager. He gave evidence that he conducted a probation review meeting with the Complainant on Friday 15 September 2023 and outlined to her that she required improvement across several areas. He met with her again on 19 September 2023 to go through and to sign the completed review form. That meeting was not instigated by the Complainant, as alleged.

A follow-up review meeting set for 26 September 2023 was rescheduled to 4 October due to work commitments. The Complainant’s performance was still not at the required standard.  Mr. S. outlined to the Complainant issues with work performance and her interactions with colleagues who had raised concerns about her behaviour which was aggressive and argumentative.  One member of the team had said that he was uncomfortable in her presence. He used the term ‘conduct’ not ’misconduct’.

At the meeting the Complainant raised issues about inappropriate comments made by a colleague, Ms F., about the Complainant’s weight and hair, and about her relationship with Mr McD. There was no reference to harassment or sexual harassment, or comments about the Complainant being pregnant.  Mr S. paused the meeting at that point, to investigate the matter. No-one had any knowledge of any comments. Mr S. made the decision to end the employment relationship after reconvening the meeting. The Complainant’s conduct at the meeting was a contributing factor; the meeting was chaotic; the Complainant was disruptive, interruptive and her tone was aggressive; she talked across him and would not let people speak. He informed the Complainant that he had decided to end her employment with immediate effect.

Mr S. rejected the assertion that the Complainant was dismissed for opposing harassment or sexual harassment. He said that the Complainant raised no issues about harassment or sexual harassment during her employment.  The first time that she raised any matters was at the review meeting on 4 October 2023. The only matters raised related to alleged comments about her hair and weight and her relationship with another colleague. There was no mention of sexual harassment, which is a serious allegation.  The first time he heard the comment about Mr McD. saying ‘just come over’ was at the WRC. He never heard any comments alleging that the Complainant was romantically interested in Mr McD. He was aware that the Mr McD. had walked out of the office after some comments by the Complainant.

Evidence of Ms N, HR Director. 

Ms N. gave evidence that the Complainant was paid in lieu of her notice entitlement and placed off payroll with effect from 4 October 2025.

3. The Relevant Law

Section 14 of the Act addresses harassment and sexual harassment and provides as follows:

14A.— (1) For the purposes of this Act, where—

(a) an employee (in this section referred to as "the victim") is harassed or sexually harassed either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace") or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is—

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer,

(ii) the victim’s employer, or

(iii) a client, customer or other business contact of the victim’s employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it,

or

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)—

(i) such harassment has occurred, and

(ii) either—

(I) the victim is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by reason of rejecting or accepting the harassment, or

(II) it could reasonably be anticipated that he or she would be so treated,

the harassment or sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the victim’s employer in relation to the victim’s conditions of employment.

7) (a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) 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.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.

Section 85A (1) of the Act addresses the burden of proof and provides as follows: -

85A.— (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

4. Deliberations

In a linked appealEDA2680the Complainant submitted that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of her Gender, Civil Status and Disability, and that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination in relation to training, conditions of employment, victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment.

In EDA2680 the Court determined that the Complainant had not established sufficient facts from which it could be inferred that she was discriminated against on any of the protected grounds cited and, as a result, had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Complainant has confined her claim of discriminatory dismissal to ‘opposing sexual harassment and harassment in the office’.

While the Complainant asserts that she was unfairly dismissed for opposing sexual harassment in the workplace, the Court found no evidence to support that assertion. Having regard to the evidence proffered in EDA2680, the Court was satisfied that the Complainant has not made out a case that she was subject to sexual harassment or that she made a complaint of sexual harassment to her Respondent during her employment.

By her own evidence she was could not complete her work within the allocated hours and worked overtime at her own behest to complete outstanding work. The Court found the Complainant’s testimony lacked credibility. She gave contradictory and inconsistence evidence that she was fired because other employees were unhappy with their positions after the company changed ownership and they were overlooked. She refused to answer many questions put to her in cross-examination, and when she did, the answers were frequently evasive or deliberately obtuse.

The Court heard clear evidence from Respondent that the Complainint was failing in the delivery of her job. The Court accepts the evidence of Mr S. that the Complainant raised no issues about harassment or sexual harassment during her employment. The Court is satisfied that the Complainant’s employment was terminated during her probation period in accordance with her contract of employment due to performance and conduct issues.

The Complainant failed to establish that circumstances existed that could constitute a dismissal linked to opposing discrimination or sexual harassment. Therefore, her appeal must fail.

Having regard to the evidence tendered and submission made, the Court find no basis to support the contention that the Respondent dismissed the Complainant for opposing discrimination in the workplace.

5. Finding

For the reasons set out above the Court finds that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of that she was subject to a discriminatory dismissal for opposing discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace.

Accordingly, the Court finds the complaint is not well founded.  The Adjudication Officers decision is affirmed.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
21 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.