Manager who sent cleaner home over blue hair dye wins €10,000 at WRC
Michelle Murray lost her job as a client services manager with Cagney Maintenance Service Ltd, trading as Cagney Contract Cleaning, last August, following the findings of a company investigation into her conduct, which were found to be "reasonable" by the Workplace Relations Commission.
However, the tribunal concluded that although dismissal was a "reasonable" sanction, the company had erred by failing to allow her cross-examine her accusers, rendering her dismissal unfair.
The tribunal heard that suspicions were raised when a HR manager noticed "a swipe of Tipp-Ex" on a document recording that the worker sent home had received induction training covering rules on "extreme hair colours".
The tribunal heard that since 2012, Ms Murray had been in charge of a "flagship contract" at a prominent site in Dublin City, run as a joint venture in the events industry between the Office of Public Works (OPW) and a private enterprise.
The tribunal heard that in mid-March 2023, a team leader working under Ms Murray, Sylvia Sanchez, arrived to work at the site with some blue dye in her hair.
Ms Murray said she was contacted by staff of the client site telling her this was not allowed, and that she told Ms Sanchez this was "against the dress code" and that she "would have to change it".
Ms Sanchez "was upset and left the site", she added.
"Your hair is lovely, but I can't allow this on [the site]," Ms Murray wrote in a text message of 11 March 2023 to the worker, which was opened to the hearing. Ms Sanchez quit a few days later, the tribunal heard.
Around this time, in the spring of 2023, Ms Murray had a number of absences due to family reasons, force majeure and illness, the tribunal was told - spending six weeks out of work before returning on 4 May 2023.
Ms Murray said she was "ambushed and blindsided" when the firm's managing director called her to a meeting on her first day back and told her she was multiple further allegations before suspending her.
Ms Murray said in her evidence that she was "confident" Ms Sanchez was aware of the company's policy on hair colouring as she had "undergone induction training on two separate occasions".
Ms Sanchez, who was called as a witness by the company, said she was not aware of the ban on hair dye and told the WRC she had other colleagues with dyed hair – including one with "purple and green" in her hair.
Gareth Kyne of Management Support Services, who appeared for the respondent, questioned Ms Sanchez on a document stating that she had been at an induction course covering hair dye policy.
The worker told the tribunal she did not have the induction training and that her signature was "forged" on the document.
She told the hearing she had observed Ms Murray "yelling" at her co-workers and said that some workers had "left the job because of the treatment they received" from Ms Murray.
She added that the company would not let her back to work unless she changed her hair colour.
A former HR officer with the firm, Nicole O'Carroll, carried out an investigation into complaints against Ms Murray.
She told the tribunal she noticed "a swipe of Tipp Ex" on one of the attendance sheets and wondered whether the document had been "doctored".
Ms O'Carroll said her investigation findings included "clear fraudulent information provided in a grievance to mislead an investigation" - confirming that the "fraudulent information" she referred to in her report was Ms Sanchez's training record.
Among other allegations were reports of Ms Murray "shouting at colleagues" and using "vulgar and expletive language", she noted.
Ms Murray's position in evidence was that she "did not falsify any document", "did not use Tipp-Ex on any document" and had "no knowledge of how it got onto the document".
"I'm not changing my story. It is how it is, and it did not happen," she said – telling the WRC the behaviours she was accused of "did not take place".
Ms Murray told the tribunal she had given Cagney "100% at all times over the 17 years" only to have her livelihood and her "good work and name" taken away. She said the WRC hearings were "the only opportunity she got to speak".
Adjudicator John Harraghy expressed "reservations" about the investigation, but concluded it came to "reasonable conclusions" and the decision to dismiss Ms Murray was also "reasonable".
However, the dismissal was rendered unfair because Ms Murray was denied the right to cross-examine her accusers during a disciplinary meeting, he concluded.
Mr Harraghy ruled the unfair dismissal complaint "well-founded", concluding: "I am not convinced that the respondent's disciplinary procedure was fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice."
Ms Murray had sought "the maximum award" of compensation of over €118,000 - but Mr Harraghy noted her evidence that she had opted to work just one day a week following her dismissal "to avoid exceeding the earnings threshold to qualify for Carer's Benefit".
He decided €5,580 was "just and equitable" compensation in the case.
He awarded Ms Murray a further €4,500 for a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on foot of a finding that the company had failed to furnish Ms Murray with a full statement of her terms of conditions of employment when she was hired in April 2006.
Further employment rights complaints by Ms Murray were either withdrawn or dismissed by the tribunal.
Robert Donnelly, BL appeared for Ms Murray in the case, instructed by solicitor James Kavanagh of Padraig Hyland & Co. The company was represented by HR consultancy Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dublin Live
a day ago
- Dublin Live
DJ Carey pleads guilty to defrauding people of money by pretending he had cancer
Former hurling star DJ Carey has pleaded guilty to inducing people to give him money after fraudulently claiming to have cancer. Billionaire Denis O'Brien is among the several people the ex-Kilkenny sportsman induced to pay him money by fraudulently claiming to have cancer and needing to fund the treatment. Carey, 54, is one of the most acclaimed figures in GAA history, having won five All-Ireland titles and nine All-Star awards. When he retired from inter-county hurling in 2006, he was hailed as an 'idol' for young players and a legend of the game. Appearing at the Circuit Court in the Criminal Courts of Justice, Carey stood to plead guilty to 10 charges put to him. The court heard that while cancer was referred to in the charges, Carey 'does have very genuine health conditions' and required surgery for a heart condition. A sentencing date has been set for Wednesday October 29. Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Sacked Irish Rail worker wins €12k for unfair dismissal
An Irish Rail worker who defied orders and took control of a crane when he saw that its load had became unstable - only for the load to trap another worker's foot when he set it down - has won €12,000 for unfair dismissal. His trade union had told the Workplace Relations Commission that the worker, Liam Óg Lynch, should get his job back after acting with "great leadership and bravery" to try and bring a dangerous situation under control in March 2023. However, in a decision published today, Mr Lynch has been denied the order for reinstatement he had sought in a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Iarnród Éireann. Mr Lynch, an Irish Rail employee since 2021, worked at a plant producing pre-stressed concrete sleepers for use in works on the Cork main line, the WRC heard. Irish Rail employment relations manager Laura Devoy told the tribunal that on 8 March 2023, an employee of a contractor had been injured by a gantry crane which Mr Lynch had "knowingly operated without permission". A manager had previously identified "safety-critical issues" with Mr Lynch's work at a meeting in November 2022, she said. The worker was instructed in February 2023 not to operate the gantry crane at the centre of the incident until further notice, Ms Devoy told the tribunal. Mr Lynch's trade union representative, Andrea Cleere of the Siptu Workers' Rights Centre, told the tribunal that the work crew was short-handed on 8 March 2023 as her client had been asked to stand in for an absent senior chargehand. Ms Cleere said her client "sought the assistance of an experienced operator but was refused", with a contract worker instead taking charge of the crane. "Mr Lynch raised concerns regarding the machine operating experience of the contractor, but these fell on deaf ears," Ms Cleere said. She submitted that with the contract machine operator running the gantry crane it "became apparent that the load had not been properly secured". "Given that the only qualified operator who could work the machine was operating an unsafe load, Liam Óg Lynch, in his role as chargehand, took over the operation of the machine," the trade union rep said. Mr Lynch decided it was "not viable to secure the load due to the surroundings" and decided to "land the gantry load as best he could in the circumstances". "Landing the machine was the securest option, given the proximity of the load to the ground," Ms Cleere submitted. "Unfortunately, an injury occurred whereby the foot of another contractor machine operator became trapped under one of the beams from the load due to the machine collapsing due to a fault occurring while the load was being grounded," Ms Cleere continued. Because of the fault, her client could not raise the gantry again, she said. "In an act of leadership and great bravery, he got a crowbar and lifted the beam with all his strength to rescue the foot of the contractor machine operator," Ms Cleere submitted. She added that when the Portlaoise depot supervisor got to the scene he "reprimanded Mr Lynch as his first course of action without tending to the injured party on the ground". Mr Lynch's position was that he was placed in an "impossible position" that day and that he only did what he did "to minimise and control an already dangerous situation" and to avert further property damage and injury. A company investigation and disciplinary process concluded that Mr Lynch's actions in taking control of the crane against his line manager's prior instructions amounted to a "reckless violation".However, SIPTU argued the circumstances surrounding Mr Lynch's actions "were not properly investigated", leading to a "fundamentally unfair" process. A view was expressed by Mr Lynch during the investigation that the equipment was "faulty", the tribunal heard. However, Ms Devoy said: "This wasn't proven, and doesn't excuse the use of the equipment in the first place." Ms Cleere countered that there was "no evidence of this being investigated". The outcome of the disciplinary process was a final written warning for Mr Lynch. However, a senior manager decided to invoke a provision of the Irish Rail disciplinary processes allowing for the termination of an employee on a "temporary contract" on foot of a written sanction, the tribunal was told. Mr Lynch told adjudication officer Brian Dolan that he would have accepted the final written warning and "worked to restore his standing" with Irish Rail if he had not been dismissed. In his decision on the case, Mr Dolan wrote that the circumstances surrounding Mr Lynch's actions "should have been investigated", as they were "material" to the allegations against him. At minimum, the company would be expected to interview other workers and put their statements to Mr Lynch, he wrote. Instead, it seemed to him that Irish Rail "simply formed the view that [Mr Lynch] operated the machine in contravention of an express direction not to do so", he wrote. He said it had been an "extraordinary decision" to increase the sanction from final written warning to dismissal, leaving Mr Lynch without "any right of response" to the finding against him and no opportunity to fight for his job. He called the dismissal "both substantially and procedurally unfair". However, on the question of reinstatement, Mr Dolan accepted the national rail operator's concerns about Mr Lynch's safety record were "not entirely unfounded", while Mr Lynch had also started a course in an "entirely unrelated field". He concluded that the parties had "moved on" and that it would be "impractical" to force them back into an employment relationship. He decided compensation was the right form of redress and awarded Mr Lynch €12,000.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Manager who sent cleaner home over blue hair dye wins €10,000 at WRC
A manager found by her employer to have produced a "fraudulent" training record after sending a cleaner home for turning up to work with blue dye in her hair has secured €10,000 in compensation following her sacking. Michelle Murray lost her job as a client services manager with Cagney Maintenance Service Ltd, trading as Cagney Contract Cleaning, last August, following the findings of a company investigation into her conduct, which were found to be "reasonable" by the Workplace Relations Commission. However, the tribunal concluded that although dismissal was a "reasonable" sanction, the company had erred by failing to allow her cross-examine her accusers, rendering her dismissal unfair. The tribunal heard that suspicions were raised when a HR manager noticed "a swipe of Tipp-Ex" on a document recording that the worker sent home had received induction training covering rules on "extreme hair colours". The tribunal heard that since 2012, Ms Murray had been in charge of a "flagship contract" at a prominent site in Dublin City, run as a joint venture in the events industry between the Office of Public Works (OPW) and a private enterprise. The tribunal heard that in mid-March 2023, a team leader working under Ms Murray, Sylvia Sanchez, arrived to work at the site with some blue dye in her hair. Ms Murray said she was contacted by staff of the client site telling her this was not allowed, and that she told Ms Sanchez this was "against the dress code" and that she "would have to change it". Ms Sanchez "was upset and left the site", she added. "Your hair is lovely, but I can't allow this on [the site]," Ms Murray wrote in a text message of 11 March 2023 to the worker, which was opened to the hearing. Ms Sanchez quit a few days later, the tribunal heard. Around this time, in the spring of 2023, Ms Murray had a number of absences due to family reasons, force majeure and illness, the tribunal was told - spending six weeks out of work before returning on 4 May 2023. Ms Murray said she was "ambushed and blindsided" when the firm's managing director called her to a meeting on her first day back and told her she was multiple further allegations before suspending her. Ms Murray said in her evidence that she was "confident" Ms Sanchez was aware of the company's policy on hair colouring as she had "undergone induction training on two separate occasions". Ms Sanchez, who was called as a witness by the company, said she was not aware of the ban on hair dye and told the WRC she had other colleagues with dyed hair – including one with "purple and green" in her hair. Gareth Kyne of Management Support Services, who appeared for the respondent, questioned Ms Sanchez on a document stating that she had been at an induction course covering hair dye policy. The worker told the tribunal she did not have the induction training and that her signature was "forged" on the document. She told the hearing she had observed Ms Murray "yelling" at her co-workers and said that some workers had "left the job because of the treatment they received" from Ms Murray. She added that the company would not let her back to work unless she changed her hair colour. A former HR officer with the firm, Nicole O'Carroll, carried out an investigation into complaints against Ms Murray. She told the tribunal she noticed "a swipe of Tipp Ex" on one of the attendance sheets and wondered whether the document had been "doctored". Ms O'Carroll said her investigation findings included "clear fraudulent information provided in a grievance to mislead an investigation" - confirming that the "fraudulent information" she referred to in her report was Ms Sanchez's training record. Among other allegations were reports of Ms Murray "shouting at colleagues" and using "vulgar and expletive language", she noted. Ms Murray's position in evidence was that she "did not falsify any document", "did not use Tipp-Ex on any document" and had "no knowledge of how it got onto the document". "I'm not changing my story. It is how it is, and it did not happen," she said – telling the WRC the behaviours she was accused of "did not take place". Ms Murray told the tribunal she had given Cagney "100% at all times over the 17 years" only to have her livelihood and her "good work and name" taken away. She said the WRC hearings were "the only opportunity she got to speak". Adjudicator John Harraghy expressed "reservations" about the investigation, but concluded it came to "reasonable conclusions" and the decision to dismiss Ms Murray was also "reasonable". However, the dismissal was rendered unfair because Ms Murray was denied the right to cross-examine her accusers during a disciplinary meeting, he concluded. Mr Harraghy ruled the unfair dismissal complaint "well-founded", concluding: "I am not convinced that the respondent's disciplinary procedure was fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice." Ms Murray had sought "the maximum award" of compensation of over €118,000 - but Mr Harraghy noted her evidence that she had opted to work just one day a week following her dismissal "to avoid exceeding the earnings threshold to qualify for Carer's Benefit". He decided €5,580 was "just and equitable" compensation in the case. He awarded Ms Murray a further €4,500 for a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on foot of a finding that the company had failed to furnish Ms Murray with a full statement of her terms of conditions of employment when she was hired in April 2006. Further employment rights complaints by Ms Murray were either withdrawn or dismissed by the tribunal. Robert Donnelly, BL appeared for Ms Murray in the case, instructed by solicitor James Kavanagh of Padraig Hyland & Co. The company was represented by HR consultancy Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd.
