Latest news with #EmployeeA
The Journal
2 days ago
- Business
- The Journal
Financial executive awarded €22k over unfair dismissal for posting sexually explicit messages
A FINANCIAL SERVICES executive who was fired after posting sexually explicit messages from the mobile phones of two female colleagues has been awarded €22,500 in compensation for unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that the procedures used to dismiss the operation's manager were flawed and unfair 'from beginning to end.' The WRC found that the company's conclusion that the manager's conduct was 'highly severe sexual harassment' was 'excessive' and 'not proportional.' It heard evidence that the manager had taken the phone from the desk of a colleague – known as Employee A – on January 30, 2024 and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. The WRC ruled that the identities of the parties should not be disclosed due to the potential collateral damage to the company and its staff. The manager owned up to sending the message as a joke after the woman discovered it on her phone. She asked the company's chief executive for a meeting to discuss what had happened as both she and her husband had found the message 'vulgar and disgusting' and was worried other content from her phone had been accessed. The WRC heard the operations manager was suspended after a meeting on February 6, 2024 after she had submitted a formal complaint. Another female colleague, known as Employee B. who attended the meeting said afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The company's chief executive told the WRC that he had forgotten there had been a previous incident in September 2022 when the manager had accessed Employee B's phone while she was on holidays. Employee B had left her phone at work to allow the chief executive to access a banking app to authorise transactions. Employee B noticed two sexually offensive messages appeared to have been posted by her on one of her social media accounts as well as a message to one of her friends saying 'Hi, how are you?' The WRC heard the manager admitted he had posted the messages as a joke when Employee B contacted him to express concern that her phone had been hacked. Employee B said that her husband and father who were on holiday with her were also disgusted by the messages. While Employee B did not accept it was a joke, she acknowledged she did not take the matter further at the time. The WRC heard that the manager admitted he had done 'two stupid things' to an external investigator hired to examine the complaints. However, he claimed Employee B was conflicted by having used what she heard at the meeting on February 6, 2024 to make her own complaint and its inclusion was unfair. 'In the heat of the moment, I made two bad choices' he told an appeals committee and claimed his actions were in line with 'jokes or stuff' between staff. He claimed the use of the term 'sexual harassment' was grossly untrue and said he felt like 'the fall guy' for widespread sexual comments and innuendo between staff. Advertisement The manager – who was regarded as 'number 2' in the company – asked the appeals committee not to let 'two moments of madness' define him when he had been portrayed as 'some kind of evil predator.' His counsel, Michael Kinsey BL, claimed the process used to dismiss him was 'pre-judged, biased and procedurally flawed.' However, counsel for the financial services company, Lauren Tennyson BL, maintained the manager had been dismissed for gross misconduct due to findings of sexual harassment. Ms Tennyson said the sanction of dismissal was fair and proportionate and 'an inherently reasonable decision.' In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, observed that the manager had submitted no evidence to support his contention that sexual banter was commonplace among staff. Ms Byrne acknowledged that any reasonable employer would regard the manager's action in relation to Employee A as 'grossly inoffensive and irresponsible.' The WRC adjudicator said Employee B had dealt with the manager's conduct with maturity and forbearance over his use of her phone and had put him on notice that she would not tolerate such action in future. Ms Byrne said it was reasonable for the two women to have been angry, embarrassed, shocked and disappointed by his conduct which she agreed had met the definition of sexual harassment under the company's policy. 'He made unwanted sexual remarks which were offensive and degrading and which had no regard for the dignity of his colleagues,' she observed. However, Ms Byrne, she claimed the finding that what happened was a high severity of sexual harassment was 'too extreme.' She stressed that she did not wish to minimise the impact of the two incidents. Ms Byrne pointed out that the incident with Employee B was originally considered 'done and dusted.' She also observed that the chief executive had not taken any action to address the manager's conduct back in September 2022. Ms Byrne said it was difficult to understand why the chief executive had not 'at the very least' had a conversation with the complainant at the time about his conduct even in the absence of a formal complaint. 'His failure to do so lends some credibility to the complainant's assertion that there was a culture of doing nothing about unacceptable sexual banter,' she remarked. Ms Byrne claimed the retrieval of the earlier incident to bolster the case for dismissal was unfair, given the second incident was sufficiently serious to warrant consideration on its own. Ms Byrne said it was not open to the independent investigator to reach a conclusion regarding the scale of the offence or the severity of the sexual harassment. She claimed the disciplinary panel had relied on the investigator's opinion and failed in their duty to consider the manager's defence, while he also had not been allowed to appeal the investigation report. 'It is my view that a reasonable, prudent and wise employer may have reached a different decision and the complainant may have gone on to make a positive contribution to the organisation,' said Ms Byrne. Although the manager suffered €74,500 in lost earnings over the two years following his dismissal, the WRC limited the award of compensation to €22,5500 – representing 30% of the total – as he had contributed significantly to the decision to dismiss him. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Daily Mirror
Man sent sexually explicit messages from colleagues' phones - but he gets compo
A financial services executive who was fired after posting sexually explicit messages from the mobile phones of two female colleagues has been awarded €22,500 in compensation for unfair dismissal The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the procedures used to dismiss the operation's manager were flawed and unfair 'from beginning to end.' The WRC found that the company's conclusion that the manager's conduct was 'highly severe sexual harassment' was 'excessive' and 'not proportional.' It heard evidence that the manager had taken the phone from the desk of a colleague – known as Employee A – on January 30, 2024 and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. The WRC ruled that the identities of the parties should not be disclosed due to the potential collateral damage to the company and its staff. The manager owned up to sending the message as a joke after the woman discovered it on her phone. She asked the company's chief executive for a meeting to discuss what had happened as both she and her husband had found the message 'vulgar and disgusting' and was worried other content from her phone had been accessed. The WRC heard the operations manager was suspended after a meeting on February 6, 2024 after she had submitted a formal complaint. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Another female colleague, known as Employee B. who attended the meeting said afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The company's chief executive told the WRC that he had forgotten there had been a previous incident in September 2022 when the manager had accessed Employee B's phone while she was on holidays. Employee B had left her phone at work to allow the chief executive to access a banking app to authorise transactions. Employee B noticed two sexually offensive messages appeared to have been posted by her on one of her social media accounts as well as a message to one of her friends saying 'Hi, how are you?' The WRC heard the manager admitted he had posted the messages as a joke when Employee B contacted him to express concern that her phone had been hacked. Employee B said that her husband and father who were on holiday with her were also disgusted by the messages. While Employee B did not accept it was a joke, she acknowledged she did not take the matter further at the time. The WRC heard that the manager admitted he had done 'two stupid things' to an external investigator hired to examine the complaints. However, he claimed Employee B was conflicted by having used what she heard at the meeting on February 6, 2024 to make her own complaint and its inclusion was unfair. 'In the heat of the moment, I made two bad choices' he told an appeals committee and claimed his actions were in line with 'jokes or stuff' between staff. He claimed the use of the term 'sexual harassment' was grossly untrue and said he felt like 'the fall guy' for widespread sexual comments and innuendo between staff. The manager – who was regarded as 'number 2' in the company – asked the appeals committee not to let 'two moments of madness' define him when he had been portrayed as 'some kind of evil predator.' His counsel, Michael Kinsey BL, claimed the process used to dismiss him was 'pre-judged, biased and procedurally flawed.' However, counsel for the financial services company, Lauren Tennyson BL, maintained the manager had been dismissed for gross misconduct due to findings of sexual harassment. Ms Tennyson said the sanction of dismissal was fair and proportionate and 'an inherently reasonable decision.' In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, observed that the manager had submitted no evidence to support his contention that sexual banter was commonplace among staff. Ms Byrne acknowledged that any reasonable employer would regard the manager's action in relation to Employee A as 'grossly inoffensive and irresponsible.' The WRC adjudicator said Employee B had dealt with the manager's conduct with maturity and forbearance over his use of her phone and had put him on notice that she would not tolerate such action in future. Ms Byrne said it was reasonable for the two women to have been angry, embarrassed, shocked and disappointed by his conduct which she agreed had met the definition of sexual harassment under the company's policy. 'He made unwanted sexual remarks which were offensive and degrading and which had no regard for the dignity of his colleagues,' she observed. However, Ms Byrne, she claimed the finding that what happened was a high severity of sexual harassment was 'too extreme.' She stressed that she did not wish to minimise the impact of the two incidents. Ms Byrne pointed out that the incident with Employee B was originally considered 'done and dusted.' She also observed that the chief executive had not taken any action to address the manager's conduct back in September 2022. Ms Byrne said it was difficult to understand why the chief executive had not 'at the very least' had a conversation with the complainant at the time about his conduct even in the absence of a formal complaint. 'His failure to do so lends some credibility to the complainant's assertion that there was a culture of doing nothing about unacceptable sexual banter,' she remarked. Ms Byrne claimed the retrieval of the earlier incident to bolster the case for dismissal was unfair, given the second incident was sufficiently serious to warrant consideration on its own. Ms Byrne said it was not open to the independent investigator to reach a conclusion regarding the scale of the offence or the severity of the sexual harassment. She claimed the disciplinary panel had relied on the investigator's opinion and failed in their duty to consider the manager's defence, while he also had not been allowed to appeal the investigation report. 'It is my view that a reasonable, prudent and wise employer may have reached a different decision and the complainant may have gone on to make a positive contribution to the organisation,' said Ms Byrne. Although the manager suffered €74,500 in lost earnings over the two years following his dismissal, the WRC limited the award of compensation to €22,5500 – representing 30% of the total – as he had contributed significantly to the decision to dismiss him. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
Telegraph
06-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Magic circle executive banned for sexual misconduct at karaoke bar
A former employee at one of London's most prestigious law firms has been banned from working in the legal profession after touching a junior colleague's bottom in a karaoke bar. Vivek Ramsaroop has been punished after the solicitors' watchdog found that he grabbed a fellow worker's waist and started 'rubbing himself' against her while on a work night. At the time, he was an employee at the magic circle firm Linklaters. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has ruled that the incident, which took place in November 2022, amounted to 'serious sexual misconduct' and banned him from working for other law firms in Britain. As part of its findings, the SRA said Mr Ramsaroop harassed a junior colleague, referred to only as 'Employee A', at a social event organised for Linklaters' London office. The SRA said: 'Whilst at the karaoke bar, Mr Ramsaroop approached Employee A and stood closely to her talking and said the words 'you're gorgeous' and 'you're amazing'.' He then put his arms around her waist and kissed the side of her face for several seconds, the regulator said. 'Shortly afterwards, Mr Ramsaroop started dancing directly behind Employee A, grabbed her waist with both hands and touched her bottom,' the SRA added. Mr Ramaswoop then 'started rubbing himself against' his colleague on the dancefloor 'with his pelvis pressed against Employee A's bottom,' the watchdog said. During his time at Linklaters, Mr Ramaswoop – whose last known address was in Johannesburg – was involved in Linklaters' legal practice but not employed as a solicitor. He specialises in mergers and acquisitions. The SRA said Mr Ramaswoop's conduct constituted 'serious sexual misconduct' as it involved repeated physical contact directed towards a junior colleague. As a result, the regulator issued a so-called 'Section 43' notice against Mr Ramaswoop, which restricts firms from employing individuals deemed to have committed misconduct, even if they are not working as lawyers. Mr Ramaswoop was also ordered to pay a portion of the SRA's £1,350 legal bill. The regulator says it expects law firms to take a 'zero tolerance' approach to sexual misconduct, which covers any abuse of a person's 'professional position to initiate or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship'. Linklaters is one of Britain's four 'magic circle' law firms. Last year, it paid its partners an average £1.9m, while its newly-qualified lawyers received starting salaries of £150,000. A Linklaters spokesman said: 'This relates to an incident involving a former employee who had joined the firm a few weeks prior. We had reported the matter to the SRA and the individual left the firm with immediate effect.'
