A SENIOR professional staff member in a college kept a file in his desk of about 50 pornographic pictures over which photographs of the head of a female colleague had been superimposed.
Details of the file emerge in a report completed last month by a Labour Court equality officer who investigated a sexual discrimination claim taken by the woman against the college.
The woman claimed the college discriminated against her by reassigning the man who kept the file after a period of suspension to the same building where she worked.
The file caused the woman acute distress and resulted in a deterioration in her physical and mental health which has affected her personal and working life", according to the report from equality officer, Mr Gary Dixon.
She had discovered the file in a locked drawer after the man rang her on April 3rd, 1992, to check that files and faxes were locked away. The man claimed he normally kept the pornographic file at home.
The file contained circa 50 pornographic pictures over which photographs of her head had been superimposed together with other drawings and additions".
Both the woman, who was employed as a clerk, and the college requested anonymity and Mr Dixon does not provide any details, in his report, that might identify anyone involved.
He found that the college had not discriminated against the woman but did everything possible to assist her once the allegations had been brought to its attention.
The woman said that her alleged harasser had shared an office with her before the discovery of the file. Its discovery led to his suspension for several months. She was also given paid leave of absence.
Mr Dixon's report says that before the file was found, she claimed the alleged harasser made lewd remarks.
He had also been displaying fever increasing aggressive behaviour" and had once asked her to put a bag over her head as he did not ant to look at her face".
In its defence, the college said it had considered dismissing the man but had decided on a final written warning.
He was reinstated in his precious position following verbal and written commitments and a psychiatric report which ad vised he did not pose a threat to the woman.
He was reassigned to his job but in a second floor office while the woman was working in a ground floor office in the same building. The woman complained that, despite this, the nature of the work meant regular encounters with him for almost a year before he was assigned to a post in another building on the complex.
The unidentified publicly funded college said it was unable to move the man to another building due to financial constraints but the equality officer is critical of the delay in moving him.
The college said it paid all the medical expenses of the woman concerned, had made a contribution to the fees of a postgraduate, course she was taking and did not take her absence into account in calculating sick leave entitlements.