A manager at Bunratty Castle has failed in a challenge to his sacking after multiple female staff accused him of sexual harassment, with a tribunal finding he had not worked at the resort long enough to make such a claim.
The Workplace Relations Commission found it had no jurisdiction to rule on a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 by the manager, Trevor Beacom, against Shannon Heritage DAC, the operator of Bunratty Castle and Folk Park.
Mr Beacom’s trade union, Siptu, argued the dismissal was “based on hearsay” and only came about because “four ladies decided they did not like him”.
Mr Beacom was not suspended after an investigation was launched on May 22nd, 2024, and continued to work full-time as a duty operations manager at the heritage site until August 13th, 2024, when he was given a dismissal letter.
‘I found out the rugby player I’m seeing is four-timing me, and I am more attracted to him than ever’
Garda whistleblower sues force over arrest by armed officers during football match with friends
Mystery surrounds Joanna Donnelly’s sudden departure from RTÉ weather forecasting role
The ‘Papabiles’: Six men who could become the next pope following the papal conclave
An external investigator concluded that Mr Beacom had breached the company’s dignity and respect policy in connection with complaints by each of the four female workers, who were identified only as Ms A, Ms B, Ms C and Ms D.
There were six allegations upheld in the case of Ms A, one complaint in respect of Ms B, five from Ms C and two from Ms D. The company concluded that Mr Beacom’s behaviour “constituted sexual harassment”, which was defined as gross misconduct in the company handbook.
A disciplinary officer concluded that there had been “serious and repeated” breaches of the policy relating to multiple colleagues, leaving the firm with “no choice but to summarily dismiss the complainant”, the tribunal was told.
One complaint was that Mr Beacom addressed one of the workers with the words “Hey beautiful” while testing a set of headphones in August 2023. It was submitted there was “no proof” he said that.
Another worker alleged Mr Beacom was “coming up to the castle numerous times when she was on her own”, the tribunal heard.
The union’s position was that these claims were unevidenced and undocumented. Union representative Victoria Stephens pointed out that the four complaints against her client were all made on May 14th, 2024, but included allegations dating back to the first month of Mr Beacom’s employment.
Ms B’s complaint was “almost identical” to the other women’s complaints, Ms Stephens submitted. “Collusion was questioned, but ignored,” Ms Stephens added.
Ibec advocate William Gillman, appearing for Shannon Heritage, argued in the first instance that since Mr Beacom was dismissed before he had built up a year’s service, the WRC had no jurisdiction to hear his case under the Unfair Dismissals Act.
He said the dismissal was “procedurally fair in all respects”. Mr Beacom’s actions “destroyed” trust and confidence and made continuing the employment relationship “impossible”, he submitted.
The union’s position was that since Mr Beacom had not taken any annual leave when he was handed a termination letter, his statutory entitlement to four weeks’ holidays brought him up to the minimum qualifying service under the Act.
However, the tribunal concluded Mr Beacom’s correct date of termination was August 13th, 2024, leaving him 15 days short of a full year’s service, as he had commenced work on August 28th the year before.
Adjudicator Ewa Sobanska wrote that since Mr Beacom was not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act, she had “no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the substantive issue”, dismissing the case.
