WRC slams HSE over delayed action in hospital harassment case

The Health Service Executive has been found liable for the repeated sexual harassment of a junior hospital pharmacist by a more senior colleague, in a decision that sharply criticises how Ireland’s largest employer handles such complaints. In a ruling published by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), adjudicator Conor Stokes accepted in full the woman’s evidence about a series of sexualised comments, unwanted advances and an explicit image shown to her at work. He found as fact that all of the incidents she described took place and concluded that she had been sexually harassed by a work colleague within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1998. On that basis, he held the HSE liable for discrimination by way of sexual harassment and awarded her €86,717, equivalent to one year’s gross pay. The award reflects both the impact of the harassment and the organisation’s handling of her complaint once she came forward.

From the outset, the ruling makes clear that this was not a contested narrative. The HSE’s own representative told the WRC that management was “not questioning [her] credibility or version of events” and declined to cross-examine her. An internal investigation had already found in her favour, and the matter had only recently been referred to a disciplinary process by the time the case was heard. Despite this, more than 13 months after her first complaint, the senior pharmacist had not faced any disciplinary sanction and remained in his post at an unidentified public hospital. That discrepancy between the organisation’s acceptance of her account and its failure to act decisively lies at the heart of the WRC’s criticism.

According to the evidence accepted by the tribunal, the behaviour began in May 2023, when the complainant was in the process of buying a house. After she showed the senior pharmacist, a man in his late forties, the location of a property she was considering, he remarked that he would be able to see her in the shower. She told the WRC that this was the first time his comments crossed a line from ordinary workplace familiarity into something overtly sexual. The remark left her uncomfortable but unsure how to respond, given his seniority and her own junior position in the hospital pharmacy. In her evidence, she said that episode set the tone for what would become a pattern of conduct over the following year.

Specific incidents in January 2024 marked an escalation. On one occasion, the senior pharmacist showed her a photograph of two women and asked which one she thought was prettier. He then zoomed in on the woman with larger breasts and said he preferred her because of them, behaviour she described as humiliating and deeply inappropriate in a professional setting. Later that month, he allowed another colleague to leave the dispensary but then stepped into her path and blocked her way out. On a further occasion, on a date not specified in the ruling, he told her that her lips looked nice that day. The adjudicator accepted that these episodes formed part of an ongoing pattern that extended into the spring.

The decision records that there were additional, unspecified incidents of sexual harassment between February and April 2024. While the details of those episodes were not catalogued individually in the WRC’s written reasons, Stokes accepted them as part of a continuing course of conduct based on her unchallenged account. Matters came to a head on 20 June 2024, when the senior pharmacist showed her a picture of naked male genitalia while they were alone in an office. She told the hearing that this was the point at which she decided she could no longer tolerate the behaviour and filed a formal complaint. Her account of this incident, like the earlier allegations, was not disputed by management.

Following her complaint, the senior pharmacist wrote to her on 9 July 2024. The tribunal heard that he admitted showing the picture, apologised and described his behaviour as office banter, while acknowledging it was intimidating and offensive and far below the standard expected of a HSE employee. The HSE later argued that there was no explicit admission in that letter about the image being of genitalia. However, the adjudicator ultimately accepted the complainant’s version of events, finding that the picture she was shown was indeed of naked male genitalia. That conclusion, combined with the earlier episodes, underpinned the WRC’s determination that she had been subjected to sexual harassment over a sustained period.

If the pattern of behaviour was troubling, the WRC reserved its strongest criticism for how the HSE responded once the complaint was made. According to the woman’s unchallenged evidence, she filed her formal report in June 2024 but was not interviewed about it until February 2025, an eight-month delay. By the time the case came before the WRC in August, 13 months had elapsed since she first complained of sexual harassment. Yet the senior pharmacist she accused had not been suspended and no disciplinary sanction had been imposed, even though an internal investigation had already found in her favour. Throughout this period, he continued in the workplace as before, a situation Stokes regarded as incompatible with the HSE’s legal duty to protect her.

The organisation’s explanation was that the man was entitled to due process and to natural justice and fairness, and that this justified its decision not to suspend him. The adjudicator recorded this justification but questioned where the same regard for procedural fairness and safety had been for the complainant. “Where, one might ask, was the complainant’s entitlement to due process and natural justice and fairness and the right to a safe working environment?” he wrote. He concluded that the steps taken to shield her were “minimal” and that the perpetrator “seems not to have been put out at all”. That imbalance between the treatment of the alleged harasser and the treatment of the complainant became a central theme of the decision.

The handling of her working conditions during the investigation further contributed to the WRC’s finding that the HSE had “wholly failed” in its duty of care. The pharmacist told the tribunal she had been “shuffled around” different locations rather than the HSE removing or restricting the senior pharmacist’s access to her. She said she had been forced to go on stress-related sick leave twice because she had to face him “too many times”. Although human resources had instructed him not to contact her, she said he continued to come into her office, a claim that was not contested by the HSE during the hearing. These circumstances, Stokes found, meant that the burden of avoiding contact had effectively been placed on the complainant instead of on the man whose conduct was under investigation.

The WRC also drew attention to gaps in the support structures the HSE had in place. The complainant said she found the procedures for reporting sexual harassment difficult to navigate and that she had been unable to secure a support contact person during what she described as a year-long ordeal. She told the hearing that she understood there were “other complaints” against the senior pharmacist, an assertion that the HSE’s employee relations manager neither disputed nor objected to. In his written decision, Stokes remarked that, having heard the evidence, it was “difficult” to disagree with her assessment that HSE policies are “difficult on victims but make it easy for alleged harassers”. For the adjudicator, these systemic concerns went beyond one workplace and raised broader questions about how the health service deals with harassment claims.

In setting out his legal reasoning, Stokes began with the uncontested nature of the evidence. He recorded that the HSE’s representative explicitly chose not to cross-examine the complainant and confirmed that management was not challenging her credibility. While the internal investigation report was never produced to the WRC by either party, he noted that there appeared to be “no reason as to why she was not believed”. On the basis of the testimony and submissions before him, he formally found that “all the incidents described by the complainant took place”. Those findings, he said, established that she had been sexually harassed by a colleague.

Under the Employment Equality Act 1998, employers can be held liable for acts of harassment by their staff if they fail to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent it and to protect employees once complaints are made. Applying that framework, Stokes concluded that the HSE had taken only “minimal” steps to protect the complainant and had “wholly failed” to shield her from further harassment. The decision criticises the way in which she, rather than the alleged harasser, was repeatedly moved around the workplace while he continued in his role with no action taken against him. The adjudicator linked her stress-related sick leave directly to the health service’s inadequate response, noting that she had to continue dealing with him in her office despite clear instructions that he should not contact her. Taken together, these factors amounted to discrimination by way of sexual harassment, for which the HSE was held responsible.

As part of the remedy, Stokes ordered that the HSE pay compensation equivalent to one year’s gross pay, totalling €86,717. In addition, he directed the organisation to disregard the time she spent on work-related stress leave when calculating her sick leave entitlements. This additional order underscored the tribunal’s view that her absences were directly attributable to the employer’s failures rather than to any ordinary illness. While the WRC does not typically prescribe specific policy changes, the language of the decision, including its description of the case as an institutional failure, is likely to carry weight in internal reviews and sector-wide discussions.

Implications for the HSE and the wider health sector are already coming into focus. The ruling shines a light on the practical operation of workplace safety policies in large public organisations, particularly where the rights of complainants and those accused of misconduct are said to be in tension. The HSE’s emphasis on the senior pharmacist’s entitlement to due process will now be measured against the adjudicator’s insistence that the complainant’s right to a safe working environment should have been given equal weight. For unions, professional bodies and advocacy groups, the case highlights the need for clearer, time-bound procedures, including prompt interviews, mandatory interim measures to prevent contact and straightforward routes to support.

Within hospitals and other health settings, the decision is likely to prompt calls for more robust use of suspension or alternative duties where serious sexual harassment complaints are made against staff who remain in close proximity to complainants. Employers across the sector may move to audit their harassment policies, refresh training for line managers and HR professionals and ensure staff understand how to report concerns without fear of being side-lined. There may also be pressure on the HSE to publish details of any disciplinary outcome in this case, along with any changes to its procedures arising from internal reviews. For the pharmacist at the centre of the ruling, the WRC decision represents formal recognition of what she described as a year-long ordeal. For the health service, it is a public rebuke that raises broader questions about whether its systems protect those who come forward or place the heaviest burden on them instead.