A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling involving Sodexo Ireland highlights critical lessons for HR professionals and employers. The case of Nkemba Patrick Okachi, a worker dismissed following an allegation of sexual harassment, resulted in an exceptional outcome: reinstatement with full back pay. This ruling underscores the importance of robust investigative procedures, objective decision-making, and fair treatment of all parties involved when dealing with an allegation of sexual harassment.
Overview of the Case
The case centred around Mr. Okachi, who was dismissed following a sexual harassment allegation. However, the investigation process was flawed. Key evidence – CCTV footage that could have exonerated him – was never reviewed during the investigation, disciplinary process, or appeal. Instead, the dismissal was based largely on hearsay evidence.
In February 2023, Mr. Okachi was dismissed following allegations arising from a conversation with a female colleague working for a client company at a gym. He claimed they had a discussion about their attendance at the gym, which he described as jovial and upbeat. Mr Okachi denied any inappropriate behaviour, stating there was nothing of a sexual nature. He described himself as a married man and explained that he complimented his colleague during the conversation. At the end of their interaction, he claimed the complainant gave him a hug, which Mr. Okachi said was a one-shoulder hug. He stated he did not feel entirely comfortable with the hug, particularly as she was wearing gym clothing.
While Mr Okachi acknowledged under cross-examination that he briefly placed a hand on the complainant’s shoulder, he maintained that CCTV footage existed to corroborate his version of events. Despite this, he was suspended the following day – a decision that the WRC Adjudicator described as “a knee-jerk reaction” and, therefore, unreasonable. The WRC Adjudicator also noted that there had been no request from the complainant for Mr Okachi not to work with her.
The WRC Adjudicator found that the entire process – from suspension through to the appeals stage – was unfair. The employer had failed to follow proper procedures, resulting in a rare outcome: full reinstatement, rather than compensation, which is typically awarded in unfair dismissal cases.
This case serves as a wake-up call for HR professionals, reinforcing the need for fairness, objectivity, and due diligence in handling allegations of misconduct.
Key Takeaways for Employers
1. Objectivity is Critical
When a complaint is raised, it is essential to remain impartial and avoid assumptions. Allegations must be treated as unproven until a thorough investigation establishes the facts.
A complaint is, at its core, an allegation. Employers must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, especially when it comes to serious allegations like sexual harassment. It’s understandable that, upon hearing of an allegation, an employer might feel compelled to immediately support the complainant – especially with the potential for public scrutiny if they don’t. However, this case demonstrates that the situation works both ways. Men, too, fear being wrongly accused. This highlights the delicate balancing act employers must navigate when handling highly emotive and sensitive workplace situations.
In an increasingly litigious Ireland, workplace investigators need specialist training. In my experience, not everyone is suited to being an investigator, and it’s not simply about having experience in management, HR, or business. Over the years, I’ve learned that a good investigator must be objective, analytical, and have a strong grasp of Irish employment law. They must also be skilled writers, able to document the facts clearly and comprehensively.
Being an excellent manager or HR professional does not automatically mean someone will excel as an investigator. Without the foundational knowledge and core skills, they may struggle to conduct a fair investigation. Let’s face it: if the investigation is fundamentally flawed, as we saw in the Sodexo Ireland case, then the decisions made in the disciplinary and appeals processes will also be flawed.
A poor investigation can undermine the entire process, resulting in unfair outcomes and potentially exposing the company to legal challenges. This highlights the importance of getting investigations right from the start – because any errors at that stage will carry through to every subsequent decision.
2. Evidence Must Be Reviewed Thoroughly
A key failure in this case was the omission of crucial CCTV footage, compounded by the fact that the woman making the complaint was not interviewed by the investigator, as she was reportedly uncomfortable. Mr. Okachi was also not given the opportunity to cross-examine her or see her statement regarding the alleged incident. Instead, an “abridged version” of her statement was provided to Sodexo Ireland by their client, with the email from the client reportedly “written by HR.”
The GSM Manager had reportedly reviewed the CCTV footage and provided a statement relating to it. This was accepted by the investigator as evidence, but in reality, it was simply hearsay. Mr Okachi was never shown the CCTV footage, nor was it reviewed by the investigator, the person who carried out the disciplinary process, or the person who heard the appeal. All three individuals based their decisions on hearsay evidence, despite Mr Okachi indicating that the footage could exonerate him.
I find it hard to believe that at no point did any of these individuals question the fact that the complainant, albeit an employee of their client, may not have been accurate in her assessment of what had happened, and each had jumped to conclusions and accepted flawed and untested evidence.
As we can see from the WRC Adjudicator’s decision, much of the evidence used in the investigation was untested. The company’s reliance on this unverified evidence during the disciplinary and appeals procedures contributed to a flawed and unfair decision-making process.
3. Training for Managers and Employees is Essential
From our experience over many years and across various situations, I believe that a well-trained management team can prevent procedural missteps. HR teams must ensure that all managers involved in suspensions, investigations, disciplinary processes, and appeals understand the principles of natural justice, due process, and fair decision-making.
Although the Adjudicator noted that Sodexo Ireland had provided Dignity at Work training to their employees, they failed to use the Dignity at Work policy to investigate this particular complaint. Instead, they believed it didn’t apply because the issue was not internal, and they investigated it under the company’s discipline policy instead, which was a fundamental flaw. This case serves as a difficult lesson for Sodexo Ireland and a reminder to HR teams that rudimentary training alone will not prevent these kinds of mistakes. Proper complaint handling and a clear understanding of policy fundamentals are key.
In my experience, many managers and HR practitioners don’t fully understand what constitutes sexual harassment, nor do they always grasp the key steps needed to handle these highly sensitive complaints correctly. That’s why we customise our training to each organisation we work with, assessing the knowledge levels of managers and HR teams, and then providing training tailored to address those gaps. This is the difference between off-the-shelf tick box training and premium, development-focused training. HR teams need different training from managers who handle these matters, and without it, we often see these basic mistakes repeated.
4. The Risks of Rushing to Suspension
In this case, Mr. Okachi was suspended before a written complaint was even received. Employers must be cautious when considering suspension, ensuring that it is justified, proportionate, and supported by clear reasoning.
There’s often a rush to suspend. But once an employer suspends someone, the clock starts ticking, and pressure mounts to conclude the process quickly – sometimes at the expense of fairness.
Suspension should not be the default response to allegations or issues in the workplace. Instead, it should be a precautionary measure that is carefully considered based on a proper risk assessment. Employers must evaluate the potential risks involved, such as the possibility of further misconduct, disruption to the workplace, or interference with an ongoing investigation, before deciding to suspend an employee.
The necessity of suspension should be clearly justified, ensuring that it is a proportionate response to the circumstances at hand. It should always be seen as a temporary measure, with the aim of protecting both the employee’s and the organisation’s interests during the investigation or resolution process. In this case, there appears to have been no clear justification for the suspension, making it a disproportionate response to the situation.
5. The Value of External Support
Bringing in an independent third party to conduct investigations can significantly reduce the risk of bias and procedural flaws. External investigators ensure impartiality, credibility, and compliance with best practices, helping employers avoid legal pitfalls and reputational damage.
Objectivity is key, and sometimes internal teams are too close to a situation to be truly impartial.
Our dedicated team of workplace investigators are trained in objectivity, assessing credibility, and analysing all the evidence in a given case. Without these key fundamentals, there is a huge risk of missteps, mismanagement, and claims.
Final Thoughts
This case highlights the profound impact that flawed investigations and rushed decisions can have – not just on the employee involved, but also on the organisation’s credibility.
I’m sure the Sodexo Ireland team who handled this complaint are reeling from the extensive coverage it has received, and there are hard lessons for them, including all the managers named in the public decision. They now face the difficult task of reintegrating Mr Okachi into employment, a challenge made all the more complex by the level of media attention surrounding the case. Not only will Sodexo Ireland’s clients be aware of how this matter was handled, but so too will their employees – and that’s never a comfortable position for any employer.
For HR professionals, the message is clear: fair procedures, thorough evidence review, and external expertise can be the difference between a legally sound decision and a costly legal battle.
At Insight HR, our team specialises in conducting independent workplace investigations, offering premium and customised training for managers on dignity at work and investigations, and providing expert advice on best practices to ensure compliance with employment law. If your organisation needs support navigating complex workplace disputes, get in touch with me today.
We pride ourselves on the fact that our clients never appear in the headlines! Why? Because we give them the right advice and practical, hands-on support – especially when it comes to the tricky stuff! Our investigations stand up to external scrutiny, which is why we’re recognised as one of the best consultancy firms in Ireland.
Here’s a link to the case for those who would like to review it themselves – it certainly makes for interesting reading. https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/january/adj-00045306.html
What are your thoughts on this case? Have you faced similar challenges in workplace investigations? Let’s discuss!
