logo
Builder who called his boss a ‘sneaky rat' wins €9k for unfair dismissal

Builder who called his boss a ‘sneaky rat' wins €9k for unfair dismissal

Sunday World29-05-2025
'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday,' so I tipped up the material and went home,' David Donohoe said.
A builder fired after calling his employer a 'sneaky rat' in a row on-site has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal.
David Donohoe secured the award under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint against SJK Civils Ltd, where he had worked for 13 years until he was sacked in April 2024.
Mr Donohoe told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing in January that he was sacked on the spot from the €50,000-a-year job when he got into a dispute with his employer about working hours on Friday, April 5, 2024.
The complainant said he had been told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am, and to go to Dublin, collect building materials and bring them to a site.
He said that when he arrived with the material, he was told that despite the early start, he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm rather than 1.30pm.
Stock image
News in 90 Seconds - May 29th
He declined to do so, upon which his employer 'started giving out', he said.
'I called him a sneaky rat, that he had it all planned,' Mr Donohoe said in his evidence.
'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday,' so I tipped up the material and went home,' Mr Donohoe said.
The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe had only been sent away from the site on April 5, 2024, but was not dismissed from his employment until April 19.
He said that after Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he 'was sacked or whatever', he tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a 'capability hearing'.
When Mr Donohoe failed to attend, the director wrote to him again and told him his failure to attend the meeting was 'failure to follow a reasonable management instruction' and that his job was being terminated for 'gross misconduct' during the April 5 incident.
Mr Donohoe's solicitor, Frank Taaffe, argued the letters sent by the firm to his client were only 'seeking to mend the respondent's hand' by 'retrospectively applying a dismissal process after the fact of dismissal'.
Adjudication officer Anne McElduff wrote that both parties 'contributed to the escalation of matters to the point of dismissal' and that it was 'regrettable' there was no attempt to enter into dialogue after that.
Ms McElduff's view was that Mr Donohoe should have engaged when there were attempts to launch a formal process.
However, she said the company failed to refer him to the correct company policy and set an 'unreasonably short and unfair' deadline to either attend a hearing or have non-attendance be added to the charges against him.
The only option for appeal was to the company director, who had been directly involved with the incident of 5 April, she added.
'I consider the respondent has not discharged the burden of demonstrating the Complainant's dismissal was fair, reasonable or proportionate or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures,' she wrote.
Mr Donohoe had claimed losses of €15,977 between April and August 2024, at which point he went into business for himself, the adjudicator noted.
Ms McElduff decided €9,000 was 'just and equitable in all the circumstances' and directed SJK Civils to pay Mr Donohoe that sum.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

WRC finds Fair City photographer was not a freelancer
WRC finds Fair City photographer was not a freelancer

RTÉ News​

time3 days ago

  • RTÉ News​

WRC finds Fair City photographer was not a freelancer

RTÉ has failed to have employment rights claims by the former on-set photographer for Fair City thrown out, after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled, for the first time, that a supposed freelancer at the national broadcaster was actually an employee. The statutory complaints were brought by photographer, Beta Bajgart, who was previously the subject of commentary at the Public Accounts Committee when it emerged the national broadcaster was paying €60,000 per year for promotional images of the Dublin-based soap opera. Ms Bajgart's case against RTÉ under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 will now proceed to a full hearing, following a preliminary ruling today. It is the first WRC case where the principles of a major Supreme Court ruling in 2023 on the distinction between employees and contractors have been applied to the position of a worker at RTÉ. The alleged misclassification of media workers as freelance contractors by RTÉ is a major legacy issue at the national broadcaster. She claims her job as a photographer on the set of RTÉ's flagship soap opera was terminated without notice on 15 December 2023. The broadcaster's lawyers had argued Ms Bajgart was not an employee, but a freelance contractor - giving the employment tribunal "no jurisdiction" her complaints. Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne noted that Ms Bajgart suffered "negative commentary" in September 2023 after attention was drawn to Ms Bajgart's role following a hearing of the Oireachtas Public Accounts committee, which had been scrutinising RTÉ's finances. In the wake of the publicity, Ms Bajgart's solicitors wrote to RTÉ asserting that she had acquired a contract of indefinite duration and was an employee, the tribunal noted. The broadcaster's director of human resources replied that RTÉ's relationship with the photographer was "not an employment relationship" but that she was "a supplier of services". Ms Bajgart was first engaged for the work as an independent contractor for a year starting in June 2011 at €750 a week. There were repeated renewals of the contract and Ms Bajgart won tender competitions in 2017 and 2019, with the rate for the job rising to €980 a week over that period, the tribunal noted. However, Ms Bajgart did not apply when the work was put out to tender again in September 2023, and ultimately ceased working on the Fair City set on 15 December 2023, when the tender process was readvertised, the adjudicator noted. Ms Bajgart gave evidence that she was interviewed for the job in 2011 and "got the contract", with "no discussion about the legal implications". She explained that she set the rate for the job based on her previous work for another production, Off the Rails. Addressing a gap in her contracts between 14 October 2018 and 21 January 2019, Ms Bajgart said she "simply continued to work" and got paid. Her barrister, Michael O'Doherty BL, who appeared instructed by Conor McCrave of Setanta Solicitors, asked if she had "consented to doing the job as an independent contractor. Ms Bajgart replied: "I wanted the job," and added that it was "never offered" to her as a position of employment. Under cross-examination from RTÉ's solicitor, Louise O'Byrne of Arthur Cox, asked Ms Bajgart whether she had done other work while engaged for Fair City. Ms Bajgart said she ran her freelance business around the Fair City shot list and that it was difficult to look for clients because she never knew when she was due on set. Ms O'Byrne also referred to a letter sent by the complainant to the Irish Times and the Irish Independent in September 2023 following remarks by Fine Gael senator Micheál Carrigy about Ms Bajgart's, in which the complainant had stated: "The photographer on RTÉ's Fair City is an independent contractor." Ms O'Byrne argued this showed the claimant "did not consider herself as an employee" of RTÉ. Mr O'Doherty said she had described herself as an independent contractor "because she did not want to upset her employer and potentially lose her job by publicly describing herself as an employee". Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne wrote that the "day-to-day reality" of Ms Bajgart's working relationship with RTÉ was "not consistent with how she was described in her contract as 'a supplier' and 'not an employee'". Ms Byrne noted that Ms Bajgart had been working 20 hours a week, part-time, for 12 years on "a series of fixed-term contracts" in a role which "contributes to the promotion and success" of Fair City. The worker had had a desk on set, "no discretion" about her level of attendance there, and could only work elsewhere three or four hours a week, and performed the work personally 95% of the time, Ms Byrne said. There were limits to Ms Bajgart's "artistic independence" and her freedom to alter her way of working in a bid to increase her earnings, with a fixed weekly rate being paid, Ms Byrne added. Ms Byrne also noted that during a period between October 2018 and January 2019, when there was no contract in place, Ms Bajgart "continued to turn up for work" and got her normal weekly rate "without any dispute". "This continuity of employment, in the absence of a contract, is indicative of a relationship of interdependence and trust, and not that of a commercial agreement," Ms Byrne wrote. "The authors of the agreements… may have genuinely believed that the working relationship with [Ms Bajgart] was that of an independent contractor, at least in the early years," she wrote. "However, it seems to me that the sustained nature of her job and the sole reliance by the respondent on the complainant to do the work, means that the legal basis of the agreement evolved from a supplier's agreement to that of an employee," she added. Ms Byrne wrote that her investigation of Ms Bajgart's status was clouded by the fact the photographer appeared to have "acquiesced" to being classified as self-employed for years - and even described herself as an independent contractor in open letters to two newspapers in 2023. "This acquiescence has no bearing on my conclusion that her relationship with the respondent was that of an employee," the adjudicator wrote.

Department of Finance clarifies hospitality VAT cut would cost less than €1bn mooted by Minister
Department of Finance clarifies hospitality VAT cut would cost less than €1bn mooted by Minister

The Journal

time4 days ago

  • The Journal

Department of Finance clarifies hospitality VAT cut would cost less than €1bn mooted by Minister

A SPOKESPERSON FOR the Minister for Finance has clarified that the cost of reducing the VAT rate for hospitality would be less than the €1bn figure mooted by the minister earlier this week. At €1bn, the cost would equate to two-thirds of the total €1.5bn available to the government for tax cuts in this year's Budget. On Tuesday, during a press conference on the Summer Economic Statement, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe told reporters that the one-year cost for reducing the hospitality VAT rate to 9% for restaurants and hotels would be between €950mn and €1bn. However, later in the press conference, he said he would need to clarify if that figure did include hotels. A spokesperson for the minister told The Journal today that, based on CSO data, the total one-year cost for restaurants and hotels is actually €810mn. Advertisement This is split €675mn for restaurants and cafes and €135mn for hotels. The cost for hairdressers would be an additional €40mn. Meanwhile, the Tax Strategy Papers published this afternoon by the government highlight that it is possible to change the VAT rate for one of these groups without changing the other. However, it said the principle of fiscal neutrality requires universal application within the same sector. This means that if accommodation stayed at 13.5% it would have to include all accommodation services, including B&Bs and small hotels. While the Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke has again stressed today that he is in favour of reducing the VAT rate, Donohoe stressed earlier this week that no decisions have yet been made. 'The exact component of what the tax package will be and the other tax measures that will be in it, I can't answer that question until Budget day,' Donohoe said. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal

Signals from Government that 9% Hospitality VAT cut in Budget may not go ahead
Signals from Government that 9% Hospitality VAT cut in Budget may not go ahead

The Journal

time4 days ago

  • The Journal

Signals from Government that 9% Hospitality VAT cut in Budget may not go ahead

DESPITE PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS from the government, ministers this week have been signalling that a cut to the VAT rate for the hospitality sector may not go ahead in this year's Budget. Just last month, Tánaiste Simon Harris said the government had made a 'solemn' commitment to reduce the VAT rate for the hospitality sector to 9%, but this week the government has been sending mixed signals on how it will proceed. VAT for the tourism and hospitality sectors was reduced to 9% during the Covid-19 pandemic at a cost of €1.2bn to the exchequer. The previous 13.5% rate was reinstated last August, despite the sector's opposition. Speaking to RTÉ Radio 1 this morning, Junior Minister in the Department of Justice Niall Collins said the VAT cut was not a 'done deal'. The Fianna Fáil TD said his personal preference would be for targeted interventions across a number of sectors instead of a broad cut to VAT in hospitality. Collins added that it would be an 'enormous cost in one jump' to move from 13.5% to 9% and stressed that it was 'simply not the case' that two thirds of the tax package in this year's Budget would be used for the hospitality VAT reduction. Earlier this week, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe and Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers published the Summer Economic Statement, which sets out the parameters for the forthcoming Budget. At the press conference on Tuesday, Donohoe said it would cost between €950mn to €1bn to lower the VAT rate for food and accommodation hospitality for one full year. This would equate to two-thirds of the €1.5bn tax package available in this year's Budget. Advertisement He told reporters that he has always been clear that if the government greenlights this measure there will need to be 'trade-offs' in terms of other measures that the won't be delivered. 'The exact component of what the tax package will be and the other tax measures that will be in it, I can't answer that question until Budget day,' Donohoe said. However, speaking last month , Donohoe said a cut in the VAT rate for hospitality 'is a shared priority across government'. Meanwhile, yesterday, Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke defended the plans to cut the VAT rate. He stressed the importance of the hospitality sector to the economy and the 200,000 people who are employed in it, arguing that the VAT reduction is a 'jobs measure' that will sustain employment in that sector. 'It is a viability measure, they are under significant pressure,' he said, noting that regulatory requirements like sick pay and wage improvements have reduced margins in the sector. Many in the industry have pointed to the VAT rate being reinstated to 13.5% after the Covid-19 pandemic as a significant strain on their businesses. However, others, like trade union SIPTU, argue that a reduction in the VAT rate equates to the government placing the interests of business above those of workers . SIPTU Deputy General Secretary, Greg Ennis argued that the government has also made commitments to workers to improve things like sick pay and to move further towards a living wage — moves they have since shelved. 'Without the Government reaffirming and meeting its commitments for improvements for workers in the private sector and a cost-of-living package, the cut in the VAT rate in Budget 2026 will amount to another kick in the teeth to them and their families,' said Ennis. He added that the government has 'gone too far' in placing the interests of business above those of workers. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store