An airport security supervisor who kissed a female colleague on two separate occasions at work should have his demotion rescinded, the Labour Court has ruled, writes Gordon Deegan.
In the case, an unnamed airport authority demoted the worker on November 7, 2023, from airport search unit supervisor (ASUS) to ASU officer (ASUO) and issued him with a final written warning, valid for 18 months.
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill has recommended that the worker be reinstated to the supervisory position with all attendant duties and remuneration restored within a week of receipt of the recommendation.
The sanctions were imposed following two incidents classified by the employer as “gross misconduct”.
The employer confirmed that the female ASU officer involved in the “kissing” incidents was subject to a separate disciplinary process and received a final written warning.
Demotion was not applicable in that case, as no lower position exists within the airport search unit.
The incidents occurred on September 3 and 4, 2023, and involved the worker kissing a colleague during active operational duties – once while the colleague was operating an X-ray machine and once in a premium services area while the worker was acting in a supervisory capacity.
At the time of these incidents, the male worker – represented by Siptu – was employed full-time on a 40-hour contract with a salary of €46,154.
The employer found the male worker’s conduct breached the Dignity and Respect at Work Policy, the Code of Conduct, and protocols governing safety-critical operations.
On September 5, 2023, the worker was suspended on full pay pending an investigation into the incidents.
The airport operator obtained statements from two ASU officers who witnessed the first incident and from a security duty manager who reviewed CCTV footage of the second.
The colleague involved, an ASU officer, confirmed that the incidents occurred and acknowledged that she was operating an X-ray machine at the time.
The male worker attended an investigation meeting on October 6, 2023, where he admitted to both incidents and acknowledged the behaviour was not professional.
The worker accepted that his actions represented a lapse in judgment.
He was demoted in November 2023 and the disciplinary officer in the case highlighted that supervisors are held to the highest standards of conduct and that the behaviour in question had the potential to compromise both safety and the employer’s reputation.
The ASUS appealed the demotion sanction to the WRC, and in his recommendation, Mr O’Neill found that the decision to demote the worker was “excessive” in light of his unblemished prior record, his acceptance of responsibility, and the employer’s failure to consider a less punitive alternative.
Mr O’Neill said: “If the supervisor role was indeed so critical from a safety perspective, one would reasonably expect that the worker would have been reassigned to a role with materially lower safety responsibilities rather than simply demoted to another safety-critical post.
“This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the employer’s rationale and suggests a lack of proportionality in the disciplinary action taken.”
