A STORE ASSISTANT was sexually harassed when a supermarket manager exposed himself to her in the workplace and sent her ‘dirty pictures’, the Workplace Relations Commission has determined.

However, it did not find the employer liable on the grounds that it took ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent the harassment.

WRC Adjudicator Patsy Doyle said that she “fully accepted” that the woman experienced sexual harassment in the course of her work after hearing evidence of three separate sexual harassment incidents by the supermarket manager.

In her findings, Doyle stated that she believed the complainant when she described that the manager sought her out at work and spoke to her reliant on sexual undertones.

Doyle said: “I also believe her when she described the lewd acts witnessed by her which shocked and disgusted her.”

Doyle detected that there was a “buoyancy”and an “easy familiarity” in the working relationship between the supermarket manager and store assistant, stating “I have to conclude that there was a certain amount of consent to the changed working relationship from December 2018”.

However, Doyle found that the employer – which owns two supermarkets – could not be found liable for the sexual harassment.

Doyle stated that the supermarket group could rely on the defence to the worker’s claim of sexual harassment permitted in the Employment Equality Act where it took reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace or in the course of her employment and to reverse the effects of the harassment.

Counsel for the complainant Catherine McLoone BL contended that her client had been witness to a number of lewd acts by the supermarket manager, which she sought to stop.

McLoone stated that her client was uncomfortable working with him and felt humiliated and degraded.

McLoone referred to the supermarket manager’s practice of sending sexual photographs and videos to the complainant’s phone, to which she did not reply.

The sales assistant made a formal complaint of sexual harassment in August 2019 to her employer and the manager was placed on paid suspension pending the outcome of a full investigation.

On 16 December 2019, the Investigation outcome issued and out of 13 allegations, 10 were unsubstantiated and three were not upheld.

The Investigator pointed to insufficient evidence to support the allegations put forward by the Complainant. The complainant rejected the findings of the investigation and subsequent appeal findings.

The supermarket group launched fresh investigation into the sexual harassment allegations after receiving audio recordings of conversations between the supermarket manager and the store assistant “out of the blue” in March of last year.

The store assistant had surreptitiously recorded on her mobile phone four conversations between the two from May to August 2019.

On receipt of the recordings, the store owner said that he met with the supermarket manager and explained that further evidence had arisen and he was suspended.

A new investigator was appointed, and terms of reference were in preparation a week later.

The store owner of the small family owned supermarket group told the WRC that he became worried when he couldn’t contact the supermarket manager and he contacted his family to ask if all was okay.

The manager – a married man – died by suicide the next day in April of last year. Doyle stated that the man “sadly died some weeks later in tragic circumstances” following his suspension.

The store owner told the hearing – staged over three days in October and January – that the manager had not left him a personal message before his death.

Doyle stated that the store assistant initiated a separate High Court personal injuries case in April 2021.

Doyle said that in suspending the supermarket manager last year and calling a fresh investigation, the employer “acted responsibly”.

She stated that by then, the supermarket manager had not worked with his employer for over 18 months and found that the employer had followed the company policy.

In evidence, the store assistant stated she and the supermarket manager had been friends and that the unwanted behaviour had started in December 2018.

The store assistant alleged that three incidents of sexual harassment to the WRC.

In March/April 2019, the woman stated that the supermarket manager had exposed himself to her and professed his interest in her at the supermarket office after 10pm when the shop was closed.

The woman said she was “gobsmacked” and reminded him of his family and alleged that the man tried to kiss her, and she became scared and shouted stop in a loud voice.

She stated that the following day, she told the supermarket manager that what had happened could not re-occur and the manager dismissed this and told her that she would have given in if five more minutes had passed. The complainant said she felt worthless.

She further alleged that the manager began to transfer “dirty pictures” through messages which quickly disappeared in a few seconds.

Concerning the second incident, the complainant recalled receiving a social media picture of a “hard penis” on her dinner break and this was accompanied by a lewd and suggestive message from the supermarket manager.

In a third incident on 4 May 2019, the woman alleged that the manager exposed himself to her and approached her before she strongly rebuked him and walked out of the shop.

She alleged that the manager tried to bargain with her for sexual favours to facilitate her early finish and the complainant told him that “he was twisted”.

Doyle observed that the complainant struggled in giving her evidence and on a number of occasions, she broke down and on other occasions, she displayed an enormous anger towards her employer.

In her findings, Doyle found that from the evidence of both the supermarket owner and store manager, she found very honest disclosures that they both understood, with some embarrassment that the supermarket manager and the complainant were engaged in a relationship, the extent of which they felt was none of their business and consequently did not probe.

Doyle concluded that the complainant was significantly aggrieved at where she found herself in August 2019 and found on the balance of probabilities that she was indeed subject of the rumour mill by the workforce, and this upset her greatly.

The store assistant returned working at the supermarket in January of this year after extended sick leave.

In her conclusions, Doyle stated that the complainant has demonstrated “a courage and dignity in her return to a supported workplace”.

Doyle said: “I am hopeful that the parties in this case can build on the complainant’s return to work and that the Complainant can rehabilitate back to work to her original hours of work.”