Woman awarded €30k for Donegal supermarket's failure over sexual harassment claim

A former shop assistant at a Donegal-based supermarket has won €30,000 in compensation over her employer's failure to address a complaint that she was sexually harassed by a male colleague.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the woman be awarded the compensation after being discriminated against on gender grounds and also being victimised after bringing a complaint.

The WRC ruled that Regional Foods Ltd had breached the Employment Equality Act.

The woman worked as a retail assistant at Simpsons Supermarket and alleged that, during her period of employment, she was sexually harassed by a fellow employee and the respondent failed to adequately address the issue.

A WRC Adjudication Officer, Mr Shay Henry, ruled that she was discriminated against in relation to her conditions of employment on the gender grounds and was victimised for bringing the complaint.

He ordered the respondent, Regional Foods Ltd Simpsons Supermarket, to pay her €30,000 in compensation.

The woman alleged that she was harassed, sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by the male work colleague, identified only as Mr X, over an extended period of time.

She told the WRC that her employer, the respondent, did nothing to investigate it or stop it.

A colleague also reported harassment and sexual harassment of several female staff members, including the complainant, by the male employee to their manager in 2019, but nothing was done and the harrassment continued,

She made a formal complaint that she was being so harassed, that threats to kill/harm her had been made by the same co-worker but her employer never investigated it.

When the co-worker heard that a complaint had been made he threatened to kill the woman and her family.

The supermarket's legal team argued that the complainant was statute-barred and the WRC had no jurisdiction to enter into a hearing. The respondent told the WRC that the allegations were mis-founded.

However, the WRC ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The woman alleged that she was subjected to both harassment and sexual harassment by a supervisor, Mr X.

The non-sexual harassment complaint related to an issue which arose regarding the wearing of appropriate protective clothing during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Mr Henry said that since there was nothing in the evidence provided to suggest that this alleged harassment related to the complainant’s gender or any of the discriminatory grounds defined by the Act, it was outside of his jurisdiction to consider under the Employment Equality Act.

The woman stated that the issue of the sexual harassment of both her and other female employees was raised on their behalf by another member of staff.

Subsequently, the complainant reported the sexual harassment herself and alleged that the respondent did not investigate the complaint and that she was victimised for raising it.

After raising the matter with the respondent the employee about whom she complained made serious threats against her.

Evidence of these threats was given under oath by a witness, a fellow employee of the complainant. The respondent did not deny that this information was passed on to the appropriate manager.

Respondent witnesses told the WRC that the complainant was friendly with Mr X and regularly gave him a lift. Witnesses for the respondent claimed that the complainant and Mr X regularly told adult jokes to one another.

Respondent witnesses told the WRC that an investigation was ongoing when the complainant left on sick leave and could not be completed as she did not return.

“Whether she did or didn’t, giving someone a lift cannot reasonably be construed as assenting to anything further in terms of sexual contact,” Mr Henry ruled.

“Similarly, whether or not the complainant engaged in telling adult jokes with Mr X, or any other similar type conversations, this cannot be construed as agreement to the type of physical contact imposed on the complainant by Mr X as detailed by the complainant in her sworn evidence.”

A manager said that  the woman wished for the matter to be dealt with as an informal complaint – something that was denied by the complainant.

Mr Henry said that the manager's request for the complaint be put in writing “would be usually indicative of a procedure associated with a formal complaint”.

Furthermore, he said, when the matter was raised informally with Mr X, his reaction was first to deny and secondly to issue serious threats against the complainant.

Mr Henry said that it must have been self-evident that the approach taken by the respondent had not resolved the matter and the person to whom the complaint was made “should not thereafter have been under any illusion that the matter could be resolved informally”.

He said a text from the woman had “made it clear” that the complainant wished for the matter to be formally investigated.

He said the respondent “could not and should not have dealt with or continue to deal with the matter informally” rather than inform the woman that the investigation was ongoing.

“The respondent, therefore, failed to adequately address the complaint of sexual harassment and the complainant was therefore discriminated against in relation to her conditions of employment on the gender grounds,” Mr Henry said.

“The complainant was victimised by the respondent through the actions of Mr X in making threats against her.”