THE HEALTH SERVICE Executive (HSE) has been ordered to pay out one year’s pay of €86,717 compensation to a female pharmacist who was repeatedly sexually harassed by a senior colleague in the workplace.

In a ruling at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator, Conor Stokes found that the HSE “has failed the complainant” due to its delay in investigating the woman’s sexual harassment complaint.

He concluded that this case “outlines a series of events that only served to benefit the harasser, the complainant’s rights seem to have been forgotten, and the respondent (HSE) only seems to have considered the accused harasser’s rights”.

Stokes stated that the only practical actions taken by the HSE during a more than 12-month period “seem to have been to move the complainant repeatedly, the harasser seems not to have been ‘put out’ at all, leading him to infringe repeatedly of the minimal steps taken by the respondent to try to safeguard the complainant”.

The two pharmacists worked in a hospital setting.

At the WRC, the female pharmacist said in the one of the instances of sexual harassment, her senior colleague told her “he would be able to see her in the shower from his house” after showing her where his house was in Google Maps when she was telling colleagues of a house she was considering purchasing.

This allegedly occurred in May 2023 and in January 2024, the senior pharmacist showed her a picture of two similar women and asked her which one she thought was prettier.

She said that he then zoomed in on the one with larger breasts and said he preferred this one because of them.

On another occasion, the senior pharmacist said to her that her “lips looked nice today, what did you do?”

Further incidents occurred in February, March and April 2024.

The worker stated that these incidents culminated in a situation where he showed her a picture of naked male genitalia while they were alone in the pharmacy office together.

This took place on 20 June 2024. The pharmacist said she lodged a complaint of sexual harassment the following Monday when her line manager returned.

She stated that the harasser admitted to showing the photograph to her in writing, and subsequently and apologised for his behaviour.

She submitted that the alleged harasser was left working in the workplace for the intervening period of more than a year, while she had to move elsewhere to continue working and had to work around the senior pharmacist.

She stated that she felt ostracised, as she is not in a position to take part in office meetings. This is because the senior pharmacist remains in place and for 70% of her working week, she is not able to use the dispensary facilities where he works.

She stated that the senior pharmacist was a man in his late 40s who has worked in the hospital since 2007.

She noted that she sent an email to HR seeking a formal process of investigation and outlined seven separate incidents.

She stated that the interview around her complaint took place over eight months late in February 2025.

She stated that she has had to continually deal with this man coming into her office, even when he was told not to by HR.

She stated that she took stress leave on two occasions as she encountered the senior pharmacist too many times.

The complainant stated that, although she submitted a complaint of sexual harassment to the HSE, nothing was done about the man’s behaviour for more than a year.

She confirmed that although she was moved location several times, the senior pharmacist continued in the workplace as he had previously done with no action taken against him in respect of the complaints.

In his findings, Stokes stated that as he has found the complainant to be credible, “and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that all the incidents described by the complainant took place”.

He said: “These included, but are not limited to, the showing of graphic images of male genitalia to the complainant, the comment about being able to see her in the shower from his house and the comment by the senior pharmacist that her “lips looked nice today, what did you do?”

Stokes stated that the HSE investigation into the female pharmacist’s complaints “upheld two of her complaints, the two which the senior pharmacist accepted occurred.

“The other incidents were not upheld as the investigation was not able to corroborate her version of events.”

Stokes stated that the HSE did not challenge the complainant’s version of events and affirmed many of the details given by her including the timeline that it took to deal with matters.

Stokes stated that the fact remains “that the senior pharmacist was left in place for more than a year while the complainant was shuffled around in respect of her work environment and the senior pharmacist repeatedly sought her out during that period”.

The adjudicator added that when the HSE was asked whether the senior pharmacist was suspended with full pay while the matter was investigated, the HSE noted that he was not, as he had to be given due process and that he was entitled to natural justice and fairness.

Stokes asked: “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?”

“I note that during her evidence the complainant indicated that it was her understanding that there were other complaints against the senior pharmacist.

“Although alternative complainants against the alleged harasser are not the subject of this complaint, this assertion was not disputed nor objected to by the respondent.”

Stokes stated that she noted that the HSE policy on sexual harassment “is difficult on victims but makes it easy for alleged harassers”.

The adjudicator said: “Having considered the submissions and oral evidence of both parties, I find it difficult to conclude otherwise.”

“Up to the date of the hearing, 13 months after reporting sexual harassment against a work colleague, no disciplinary action had been taken against the alleged offender.

“Having regard to the policy and to the delay in the investigating the sexual harassment complaint, I find that the respondent has failed the complainant. Having regard to the foregoing I find that the complainant has established that she was sexually harassed by a work colleague.”

Stokes concluded that “a reasonable employer would have placed the Manager on paid leave while matters were being investigated”.

He said that “this inaction and delay served to deny the complainant an effective remedy for the sexual harassment she was subjected to”.

He said: “I find that the employer did not take such steps as were reasonably practicable to safeguard the complainant and therefore the respondent cannot avail of any defence in respect of the harassment. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was discriminated against, contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998.”

Stokes said that although the HSE did initiate an investigation, “the investigation took longer than a year to conclude during which time the senior pharmacist repeatedly breached the safeguarding measures put in place, seemingly whenever he so wished.

“Effectively no action was taken to remove the harasser from the complainant’s work environment.”

In its submissions at the WRC, the HSE stated that it must give the senior pharmacist due process and that he was entitled to natural justice and fairness.

The HSE submitted that safety measures were put in place to limit the interactions between the senior pharmacist and the complainant.

The HSE also noted that the investigation found in favour of the complainant and that the matter had been recently referred under a stage 4 disciplinary matter.

The HSE stated that it was accepted that it did not do enough to protect the complainant.