WRC hearing abandoned after adjudicator says witness giving evidence from moving train not ‘satisfactory'
Workplace Relations Commission
(WRC) adjudicator on Monday abandoned an employment rights hearing after deciding it was not 'satisfactory' that a defence witness had dialled in from a moving train.
South East Technological University Student Union is subject to a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by worker Kate Rellis, which was called on for hearing via videoconference before being quickly adjourned.
WRC adjudication officer Gaye Cunningham noted that union president Erin Foley had joined the call from a car and that its welfare officer, Lucy Kate Bosch, was 'on a train'.
'While we say that our hearings are otherwise than in private ... our hearings are not being held in public streets or transit. When you go off mute, I seem to be hearing other passengers in the train,' Ms Cunningham said.
READ MORE
'I apologise for the noise; I'm currently travelling to Galway for work at the moment,' Ms Bosch said.
Ms Cunningham said: 'I can hear a lot of background noise. I can't continue a hearing in the circumstances.'
Ms Foley said she had not been president of the students' union during the period relevant to the complaint and that Ms Bosch had been 'mentioned as a witness in the complaint'.
'I do need her here,' she said of Ms Bosch.
[
Recycling depot worker who got 'aggressive' after remarks about Pope loses challenge to sacking
Opens in new window
]
Ms Cunningham told the officers of the students' union: 'You could have applied for a postponement. If a person is not available to take part in a hearing in what I'd call a safe setting, I can't continue,' she said.
'It's not satisfactory that people are in a train where it's very noisy,' she added.
Asked to comment, the worker, Ms Rellis, said: 'I understand that it's not ideal to have members of the public in the background, I wasn't expecting that. I do agree, though I want to move forward today.'
Ms Cunningham said her 'strong feeling' was that it 'would not be satisfactory to continue'.
'You might as well be out on the main street,' she said to Ms Bosch.
'You must be in a fairly safe setting, an office setting, on the next date. I'd appreciate if the respondents would pay attention to the fact that you need to be in a reasonably formal setting. We'll resume as soon as we can,' the adjudicator said.
She adjourned the matter pending a rescheduled hearing 'as soon as possible'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
a minute ago
- Irish Times
‘I'm angry that my abuse as a child does not count' – State must pay for school sexual abuse
Minister for Education Helen McEntee stated recently that those responsible for historical sexual abuse in schools must pay. She is right. But let us be very clear. This includes the State. It cannot be erased or ignored that 11 years ago, following the case taken by Louise O'Keeffe , the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) established that the Irish State had – and continues to have – a positive duty to take steps to protect children from abuse and to provide an effective remedy for those who have suffered sexual abuse in Irish schools. The ECHR ruled the State had been aware of the level of sexual crime by adults against minors in Ireland. The court made it clear the State bears a stand-alone responsibility to every child abused in State schools for its failure, until the early 1990s, to implement national child protection measures. It cannot outsource that responsibility to religious organisations, nor hide behind procedural defences. The Government is well aware of this judgment and is legally bound to comply with it. As recently as January 2024, a plan was submitted to the ECHR, updating it on State progress 'to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights ...' which includes the State paying redress of €84,000 to survivors of sexual abuse in schools. READ MORE Strangely, and extremely worryingly, the interdepartmental group who recently published their report on the recommendations of the scoping inquiry, seem to be completely unaware of the European Court decision, or have chosen to act as if Ireland is not party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Their report includes the assertion: 'It has been concluded in case law, at Supreme Court level, that the State does not have such liability.' What the report fails to say is that the European Court of Human Rights directly rejected this view in the O'Keeffe judgment. Survivors have already waited far too long and suffered too much. They cannot now be told that the justice they are owed can only be delivered if and when the State manages somehow to make the churches open their coffers Notwithstanding the fact that the State has failed miserably so far to adequately implement the ruling, it seems extraordinary that senior Government officials should now ignore its very existence. This contradiction raises a more fundamental question about the position of the Government and State with regard to its ECHR obligations. In Europe, the Government has accepted the ECHR ruling and engaged with the court regarding its progress in implementing its terms, albeit it has thrown so many obstacles in front of survivors that to date, only 158 have received redress. At home, the Government is denying its existence, and further delaying justice for the many, increasingly ageing, survivors of abuse. Is it possible that despite what Ireland's representatives are saying in Strasbourg, some elements of the State infrastructure still do not accept the rulings of the European Court? [ Why are the experiences of people, like me, who were resident in Temple Hill forgotten? Opens in new window ] So, what is it exactly that the State is saying to victims of sexual abuse in schools? Can the Government confirm that it accepts the ruling of the European Court which found that the State does bear a responsibility for abuse that occurred in schools? Can it confirm that it will now, finally, deliver redress and fulfil its own obligations to those victims who have waited far too long for justice? To be clear, the legal strategies adopted by religious organisations to avoid restitution to victims are unconscionable. And there are many who – rightly – applaud the Taoiseach when he stated it is the Government's 'intention, commitment and determination' to make religious organisations pay compensation for the abuse they inflicted on children in schools. It is also important to make clear that any individual or private organisation responsible for the abuse of children should be held liable – under both criminal and civil law. But this is not an either/or situation. The Government has overarching responsibility for ensuring survivors of abuse receive appropriate redress. Of course, it should use every power it has to force the churches to make reparations from their very considerable wealth. However, this should have absolutely no impact on its own obligation to fully implement the O'Keeffe judgment immediately and deliver the redress for which it has responsibility. Survivors have already waited far too long and suffered too much. They cannot now be told that the justice they are owed can only be delivered if and when the State manages somehow to make churches open their coffers for the schools they ran on behalf of the State. Meanwhile, current State policy is to leave victims and survivors spending years trying to navigate a complex and hostile legal terrain. This is not justice. This is retraumatising victims. [ Sex abuse in schools: State accused of ignoring its liability for redress Opens in new window ] For example, last December, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission wrote to the Minister for Education as part of our ongoing work in pursuit of redress for some of Louise O'Keeffe's classmates at Dunderrow National School (not a religious school) who had been similarly abused. To date, there has been no response from the Government. The 'Dunderrow women' have been known to the State for decades because, like Louise O'Keeffe, many of them provided statements to An Garda Síochána – the very statements that led to prosecution and conviction of their abuser. On hearing of the latest investigation and further delays of redress, one of the Dunderrow women said: 'I feel outraged that the Irish Government haven't put the redress scheme in place for all survivors of sexual abuse. I'm extremely angry that my abuse is not of concern to the Minister, that my abuse as a young girl, a child, does not count. I feel left out and worthless.' McEntee has said those responsible must pay. That means the State. A redress scheme must be established immediately, without the arbitrary and discriminatory conditions in the previous schemes, regardless of any new commission of investigation's outcome. The State must finally comply with the O'Keeffe judgment in full, and it must do so now. Survivors have waited long enough. Justice, truth and dignity, demand no less. Liam Herrick is chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Colonialist: Gruelling but impressive portrait of the virulent racist who bankrolled Parnell
The Colonialist: The Vision of Cecil Rhodes Author : William Kelleher Storey ISBN-13 : 978-0199811359 Publisher : Oxford University Press Guideline Price : £30.99 Cecil Rhodes never got around to visiting Ireland . The Englishman, whose name has become a byword for British imperialism, however, was also an enthusiastic supporter of Irish Home Rule. In 1888 the Africa-based mining magnate met Charles Stewart Parnell , was greatly impressed and sent him a donation of £10,000 (worth almost €1 million today). The money came with just one condition – Parnell had to alter his Home Rule policy so that some Irish MPs would remain at Westminster even after a parliament was established in Dublin. As William Kelleher Storey points out in this sober, heavyweight and quietly damning biography, Rhodes's generosity towards Ireland was not so surprising as it might first appear. Along with painting the world map red, he dreamed of creating a giant federal parliament in London with representation from every British colony. Ireland should be 'a stalking horse', he wrote to Parnell, and 'the stepping-stone to that federation, which is the condition of the continued existence of our empire'. Explaining this vision is a key theme of Storey's book, the first womb-to-tomb Rhodes biography for almost 40 years. During that time its subject has been increasingly denounced as a greedy plunderer, a white supremacist and an architect of South African apartheid. The international Rhodes Must Fall movement is still campaigning to topple statues of him at university campuses he once helped fund. While The Colonialist is anything but a whitewash, it does not shy away from an inconvenient truth. In Rhodes's own twisted way, he was also an idealist – and Storey argues vigorously that his record must be contextualised as well as condemned. If Rhodes was your specialist subject on Mastermind, this book would supply the answer to every conceivable question. In painstakingly researched detail, it recounts how the sickly son of a Hertfordshire vicar was sent out to his brother's Natalian cotton farm, built the De Beers diamond company into a massively profitable monopoly and wound up as prime minister of the Cape Colony. It chronicles his lifelong quest to unite southern Africa's four colonies into one self-governing state, spreading white settlements while exploiting the region's natural resources. A history professor at Millsaps College in Mississippi, Storey has a keen eye for anecdotes that illustrate Rhodes's distinctly odd personality. Young Cecil's nanny sometimes found the boy hidden away and moaning pitifully, unable to tell her why. Even after becoming fantastically wealthy, he valued power over possessions and usually dressed in rough workingman's clothes. He seems to have had a self-destructive streak, regularly consuming large amounts of rich food, cigars and alcohol, including a champagne and Guinness cocktail at lunchtime. 'I hear you are a woman hater,' Queen Victoria remarked to him over dinner, presumably because he never showed any interest in them. He gallantly replied: 'How could I dislike a sex to which your majesty belongs?' While Rhodes was not without charm or charisma, Storey accuses him of being far more devious than his upright image suggested. In one notorious episode, he effectively tricked the illiterate King Lobengula into signing a document that gave away gold mining rights across Matabeleland and other territories. When talking failed, Rhodes turned to guns and sanctioned a raid on the Transvaal's Boer republic that he hoped would spark a British uprising in 1895. Its failure permanently dented his reputation and he died just over six years later, aged 48. Above all, Storey leaves readers in no doubt that Rhodes was a virulent racist even by 19th-century standards. 'The natives are children … just emerging from barbarism,' he declared in a parliamentary speech described by the author as 'dripping with dismissive contempt'. He systematically deprived black people of land, finance and voting rights, telling a police officer during a rebellion: 'You should kill all you can … it serves a lesson to them when they talk things over their fires at night.' Rhodes has already inspired more than two dozen biographies, but Storey claims to go further than any of them by exploring his impact on southern Africa's physical landscape. There are many self-contained sections about how he changed its agriculture, railways, telecommunications, urban development and diamond production. Some of this is not for the squeamish, particularly an account of the grisly methods used by mine bosses to make sure workers were not smuggling precious stones in their bodies. It all adds up to a rich and panoramic narrative, so wide-ranging that The Life and Times of Cecil Rhodes might have been a better title. Charles Stewart Parnell predicted that the man who was bankrolling his party 'would not live in history'. On this, at least, the 'uncrowned king of Ireland' was dead wrong. 'It will be much easier to remove a few statues than to reverse the legacy of Cecil Rhodes,' Storey warns at the conclusion of his often gruelling but always impressive portrait. 'Understanding what he did is a first step to freedom.'
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trade deal includes ‘zero for zero' arrangement for aviation, says Simon Harris
The agreed trade deal between the European Union and the United States has secured a 'zero for zero' arrangement for aviation, Simon Harris has said. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade wrote to the Government Trade Forum on Sunday night to say that while a 15 per cent baseline tariff was 'regrettable', it was the maximum tariff that could be imposed on the pharmaceutical sector even after the US administration's investigation into the sector's imports. He also confirmed that a 'zero for zero' agreement had also been secured for certain aircraft components, agricultural products and chemicals. The details were included in a letter sent by Mr Harris to the trade forum, which includes Government Ministers, State agencies, business organisations and trade unions. READ MORE In the letter, Mr Harris said that Sunday's agreement between European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and US president Donald Trump in Scotland will 'avoid tariffs of 30 per cent being imposed by the US on August 1st and will also avoid the EU imposing its own countermeasures'. Mr Harris described this as 'much-needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world'. 'While ultimately it is regrettable that the baseline tariff of 15 per cent is included in the agreement, it is important that we now have more certainty on the foundations for the EU-US trade relationship, which is essential for jobs, growth and investment. President von der Leyen described this as 15 per cent tariffs across the board and all-inclusive,' he said. 'We will examine the detail of the agreement in the coming days but it is our understanding from president von der Leyen that this rate of 15 per cent is a ceiling on any potential tariffs that may be imposed following the conclusion of the section 232 investigations, including those relating to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. The EU will continue to work with the US to underline the closely integrated nature of the EU and US pharmaceutical sector.' 'While the baseline tariff is 15 per cent, there are important exclusions from that, including a zero-for-zero arrangement on aviation. Ireland had made the case throughout these negotiations for zero-for-zero arrangements in as many sectors as possible.' [ EU pushing to cap future tariffs on pharma in US deal Opens in new window ] 'The commission president has also confirmed that there has been agreement on zero tariff levels on a number of key strategic products – including all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain agricultural products, semiconductor equipment, natural resources and critical raw materials. As the framework negotiations continue, the EU will keep working to add more products.' He told the forum that the Irish Government will now be examining the 'full implications' of the agreement on the all-island economy, including any differential tariff rates on either side of the Border. He said the Government will also now be looking into the 'implications' of a 15 per cent tariff rate.
