Shop cleared of discrimination over €68 payment in coins
A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins.
The children's father filed a complaint accusing the accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on 22 December 2023 because they were members of the Traveller Community.
The claim was ruled "not well founded" by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published today (FRI), which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors.
The tribunal heard that at around 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier had scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for the girl and boy, whose father was outside the premises in a car.
The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. "[It] took some time to count," she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month.
When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with "a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside", she told the WRC.
The cashier then asked the children whether they had "anything larger to pay with". She explained that there was "a large queue building up" at her till.
The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him "very confrontational".
She told the WRC she "made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money" and had only asked for notes because it was "a very busy day". There were "a lot more than 50 coins involved".
The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her that he had banknotes, but told her he "wished to pay in full using coins".
The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said.
The father of the children replied: "You are refusing to accept our payment."
She said she was "trying to find a solution" and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change – but the father of the children "turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation".
The children's father gave evidence that they told him at the car that they "were not being served" and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he "supported what [his wife] had said about the event" in presenting the claim.
The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
"The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident".
The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the "misunderstanding" in a bid to de-escalate the situation as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused.
Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published today that it was "not prejudicial" for the cashier to ask the children if they had "larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases".
He noted that by law, "no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction".
He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was "hearsay".
The cashier's evidence that she "never refused to complete the purchase" but simply asked the children whether there was "a more convenient way to pay", he wrote.
"The request to pay with larger value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day," he wrote.
He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she "did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct", and dismissed the complaint.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Charity finance manager who raised concerns over accounts awarded €35,000 for dismissal
A charity has been ordered to pay its former finance manager nearly €35,000 for dismissing him 'wholly or mainly' because he voiced fears its accounts might not stand up to an audit. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that an email from the employee, a chartered accountant, looking for 'extra time' to investigate a loss of €33,000, sparked an 'adverse' response from its former chief executive. In a ruling just published, the WRC held back the charity's identity, despite the complainant's objections to holding the case in private, citing the nature of its work and the potential that a Garda probe into allegations of 'criminal conduct and financial irregularities' might be prejudiced. The charity asked that the case be entirely anonymised on the grounds that 'negative publicity' would lead to those using its services losing confidence. READ MORE The accountant, who represented himself before the WRC in March said he took up work with the charity as an independent contractor in June 2023 and joined its staff on September 30th that year. The charity's previous finance manager had been out sick before leaving the organisation, while an accounts assistant also left in October 2023, leaving the complainant responsible for the bookkeeping and payroll, and dealing with creditors as well, the tribunal heard. On October 26th, 2023, the complainant said, he told a board member, Mr A, he would have management accounts available 'as soon as possible' in response to a query. The organisation's chief executive wrote the following day, the eve of the October bank holiday weekend, asking after the accounts and stating they had been due the previous day. The claimant replied that he was looking into a 'draft loss of €33,000' and had identified matters requiring 'explanation and correction'. 'I must do a thorough clean up now in order to pass audit by end of January 2024. I need some extra time please,' the email concluded. When the chief executive said the board member would come to the office the following Tuesday to 'assist with the anomalies in the management accounts' the claimant expressed concerns about independence, the email thread submitted to the WRC read. The chief executive said he was 'comfortable' with the board member assisting. The complainant told the WRC the costs were being treated as current liabilities on the balance sheet and he was not confident they were being posted correctly. 'Substantial payments leaving the bank account in October 2023 triggered the query, and there was a snowball effect from there,' he said in his evidence, adding that he 'wanted to see what else was outstanding'. The claimant said he 'wasn't sure' at the time whether or not there was wrongdoing afoot at the charity but he was 'confident that company law was not being complied with and that books and records were not being kept, which is an offence'. He added that when he used the phrase 'pass audit' he 'did not do that lightly'. 'Accounts don't lie,' he said, adding that if he was in the place of his boss, he would have seen it as a 'red flag' and given more time to examine the matter instead of dismissing him. He called in sick the Tuesday after the bank holiday. The chief executive wrote to him on Thursday, November 2nd terminating his probationary employment with immediate effect. He had been a direct employee of the charity for just over a month. He also made formal written complaints to the Garda Fraud Squad, and the Charities Regulator the tribunal heard. The respondent's lawyers submitted that these complaints cited 'alleged misappropriation of funds by the CEO'. Una Clifford BL instructed by John Carroll of Crowley Millar Solicitors, for the charity, argued that the email was not a protected disclosure, but 'just another excuse' for delay due to 'poor performance'. The board member, Mr A, said he was an accountant himself and did not consider the complainant 'competent' in the role. Mr A accepted the accounts 'required improvement' but said they were not in 'as bad a state' as the complainant alleged. The chief executive, in his evidence, denied the email of October 27th was a protected disclosure. He said concerns were raised at a board meeting on Wednesday, November 1st about the complainant having 'inappropriate contact with service users', 'having his feet on the desk' and an 'issue' with Garda vetting. The accountant was terminated for poor performance, he added. The witness said the claimant had 'disobeyed a direct reasonable instruction' about going to a Friday coffee morning with service users. The claimant said he only ever went in the company of a professional employed by the charity. The tribunal also heard that in the days between the claimant writing his email and being dismissed, the charity's board discussed his Garda vetting application and noted in its minutes that he was 'not forthcoming' when he filled out the form. The claimant told the WRC that he had been bogged down with work and was delayed in submitting the application – but that in any event, the Garda vetting bureau had advised him he did not need to be vetted. He accepted when questioned that vetting was a term of his contract, but asked in response why he had been 'allowed on site without Garda vetting'. Adjudicator Michael MacNamee wrote that when he heard the evidence on the question of alleged inappropriate contact with service users, he was 'left with the impression that it was far less serious than was suggested in the submissions'. It lacked 'credibility' as a reason for dismissal, he added. Any issue around Garda vetting was 'no longer live' by the time it was brought before the board, he added. The adjudicator noted that both Mr A and the complainant were accountants, but neither could be said to be independent, so there was no independent expert evidence before him on the accounts. He concluded on the balance of probabilities that the charity had failed to rebut the presumption that the claimant had a 'reasonable belief that the accounts were not being kept in accordance with the legal requirements'. He concluded that the email of October 27th, 2023 from the complainant was a protected disclosure, and that this 'started a chain reaction which led directly to the complainant's dismissal'. The WRC ruled that the accountant's dismissal 'resulted wholly or mainly from the making by him of a protected disclosure'. Whatever concerns the chief executive had about the worker's performance 'whether justified or not', there was no written record of anything serious enough to require more than some 'coaching', the adjudicator wrote. He found the chief executive had a 'strong adverse reaction' to the email of October 27th, 2023 which was exacerbated by the complainant's emails pushing back on allowing Mr A becoming involved, and leading ultimately to the chief executive's patience running out. He ruled the worker was unfairly dismissed and awarded him €34,737 in compensation.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
RTÉ HR manager denies making worker 'misrepresent' tax status
A senior human resources manager at RTÉ has denied that it procured a media worker to "misrepresent his employment status" to the taxman to get shifts in its newsroom. The worker, Joseph Kelly, claims he was denied the statutory entitlements to paid leave and Sunday premium pay that would normally accrue to an employee while he was engaged by the broadcaster under a "freelance" contract between 2012 and 2018. The State broadcaster, however, argues that Mr Kelly was paid all Sunday premium owed, along with annual leave and public holidays. RTÉ was found liable for a €36,000 bill for the period by the Department of Social Protection after it ruled in 2022 that Mr Kelly had been employed since 2012. However, it maintains the ruling only pertains to insurability of employment and that the claims are out of time. Questioned repeatedly about Mr Kelly's status at a hearing yesterday, a senior human resources manager at RTÉ said: "We absolutely accept the insurability decision. The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can't rewrite history, that's what it was." The WRC was hearing evidence in complaints brought under the Organisation of Working Time Act 2005 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by Mr Kelly. Mr Kelly's representative, Martin McMahon, said the Scope ruling showed his client "should have been treated as an employee" by RTÉ since 2012, and it therefore followed that he had been denied various pay-related statutory rights set out in his complaints. Mr Kelly claims he was denied the entitlement to paid annual leave, not paid for public holidays, and did not receive a premium for Sunday work from 2012 to 2018. He further alleges he was not provided with a statement of his core terms of employment. Giving evidence yesterday, Mr Kelly said: "The way I was brought in was by word of mouth. "My name was given to a guy, I was brought in, talked to a manager, it was a casual interview. When I was coming in, HR said I had to be a sole trader, so I became a sole trader," he said. Mr Kelly said his job at that time in the broadcaster's media ingest department from 2012 to 2018 was to "cover the guys in the room" - all of whom were RTÉ employees - and to do "whatever was needed of me". It was a "high-pressure role" where Mr Kelly and his coworkers received and organised multimedia material and recorded news feeds from across the world in preparation for news broadcasts, the complainant said. "I wouldn't have received time off. It's famine or feast - you might have a month where you might get two days; you might have a month where you only get two days off," Mr Kelly told the hearing. This situation continued from 2012 to 2018, when the ingest room manager "got a promotion" and an employee "moved up" into the management position, leaving an open vacancy, whereupon he "became staff", Mr Kelly said. He told the WRC that due to the fact he was self employed, he "wasn't allowed" to apply for internal jobs. Having received a staff contract, he later secured a more senior position as a newsroom coordinator in 2023, he said. He also said he believed he should have got incremental pay rises and could have advanced to a more senior role more quickly if he had access to internal staff competitions and that he "should be on a higher rate than I'm on now". Addressing Mr Kelly's current contract in cross-examination, RTÉ's solicitor, Seamus Given of Arthur Cox, put it to the complainant that he was on point 12 of a 14-point salary scale in his current role, after 11 years' service. "I'm putting it to you are correctly positioned," Mr Given said. "Well, I would say no," Mr Kelly said. Angela McEvoy, a senior HR manager at RTÉ, gave evidence that in that period Kelly was paid all Sunday premium owed, along with annual leave and public holidays, referring to a payroll report submitted by the broadcaster. Questioning Ms McEvoy, Mr McMahon said: "Joseph was an employee of RTÉ from 2012 to 2018, that's the legal position, uncontested by RTÉ. Joseph's increments would be different if RTÉ accepted all those years of service, yes or no?" "No, we're saying not, because Mr Kelly is on point 12 of the salary scale, that is obviously close to the top of the salary scale," Ms McEvoy said. Asked whether RTÉ informed Mr Kelly that he had been "misclassified as self-employed" when he was first put on an employment contract in 2018, Ms McEvoy said: "No, because there was no need to do that. There was no need to inform Mr Kelly of anything like that." "Joseph was offered employment in RTÉ, but legally Joseph had been an employee from 2012, do you accept that?" Mr McMahon said. "No I don't," Ms McEvoy said. "You've accepted it in Social Welfare, why won't you accept it here?" Mr McMahon asked. "What RTÉ accepted is a PRSI insurability decision going back to 2012," the witness said. Mr McMahon continued to press Ms McEvoy on this point for some time and received the same answer. She said at one stage: "You're saying there's a contract of employment. We absolutely accept an insurability decision. "The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can't rewrite history, that's what it was," she said. Addressing the contract for services signed by Mr Kelly in 2012, Mr McMahon put it to her that RTÉ "has the power in that situation" and that there was "no negotiation" of its terms. "I don't accept what you're saying. There is a choice for an individual to sign or not. Nobody is forced to sign," she said. She agreed that it was a term of the contract that a worker "had to be registered as self-employed in order to access a self-employment agreement" with RTÉ at that time. Mr McMahon said it was an offence to "procure an employee to misrepresent themselves to the Revenue Commissioners". "In the contract, black and white, [it states] RTÉ has to receive written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners that Joseph can be treated as self-employed for tax purposes," Mr McMahon said. "Do you accept RTÉ did procure Joseph to misrepresent himself to Revenue?" Mr McMahon said. "Absolutely not," Ms McEvoy said.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
TikTok staff didn't know content moderation quiz would be factor in redundancies, WRC told
Hundreds of staff at TikTok 's Irish arm were given competency tests in late 2023 without knowing that the results would go towards deciding whether they would keep their jobs in a mass redundancy drive the following spring, a tribunal has heard. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard evidence on the tests this week as part of a challenge by a former content moderation team leader who lost his job last year after missing the cut to keep his job by a fraction of a point. Over 1,900 workers worldwide who were put at risk of redundancy in early 2024 were quizzed on their knowledge of TikTok's content moderation policies – some 950 of them in Ireland, the Workplace Relations Commission was told. A senior manager at the social media firm said bosses had taken a 'quite deliberate' decision to keep the workers and their line managers in the dark about the true reasons for the test. READ MORE The tribunal was hearing evidence on a complaint against TikTok Technologies Ltd under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 by Mohur Saleh, who lost his job in April 2024. Mr Saleh was one of 564 staff made redundant worldwide at that time by TikTok, 289 of them in Dublin, the WRC was told. However, Mr Saleh has argued he was unfairly selected for redundancy on the basis that the scoring system in his talent pool was partly based on the results of the November 2023 test – which he had not passed – as well as on performance ratings, which he had disputed. The WRC heard Mr Saleh scored 32.25 points as part of a redundancy selection process which began in February 24. That was 0.75 short of the cut-off point at 33 points. IATA Director General Willie Walsh on airline profits, air fares and why the Dublin Airport passenger cap makes Ireland a laughing stock Listen | 35:56 Mr Saleh had scored 25 points for his clean disciplinary record, with his performance ratings for 2022 and the first half of 2023 accounting for the balance of his score, the WRC heard. However, Mr Saleh did not make the minimum grade in the policy knowledge test and was awarded 0 out of 10 available to him, the tribunal heard. Kevin Purcell, who was head of training and quality for TikTok in Europe, the Middle East and Asia (EMEA) at the time of Mr Saleh's redundancy, said that senior management 'formed a view that we needed to restructure the entire organisation globally'. That meant it required only 39 out of the 63 moderator team leads on staff and was aiming to shed 24 positions, the tribunal heard. Mr Purcell said he had no knowledge of which staff 'made the cut' until the points were calculated and ranked. He said there was 'clear water' between Mr Saleh's position and the cut-off point as a number of other employees scored higher than the complainant but failed to secure one of the available jobs. Over 1900 workers in the areas later affected by the redundancies were directed to do the policy knowledge tests in November 2023, the tribunal heard. The workers were asked to review 100 pieces of content which had already gone through TikTok's content moderation process, with their answers being checked against the official moderation outcome, the tribunal heard. Mr Purcell confirmed when questioned by the adjudicator, Monica Brennan, that the tests were done 'with the restructuring in mind' and that staff did not know the purpose of the policy tests at the time. 'That was quite deliberate, because it was a blind test. I was concerned that if people knew it was being done in contemplation of restructuring, it might lead to people cheating,' he said. Mr Purcell said the pass grade in the test was 51 out of 100 and that Mr Saleh had failed to pass this threshold. Mr Saleh's evidence was that 35 of the 100 posts did not load when he attempted the test. He also took issue with the fact that the test was based on TikTok's rules for the English-language market, which were different from the rules for the Middle East and North Africa where he had primarily worked. Mr Saleh said his separate performance ratings had been affected by 'misconduct and harassment, including serious harassment, involving colleagues', with a knock-on effect on his performance, and about which he had complained. He said positive feedback about projects he had undertaken ought to have been taken into account, in 2022 and 2023, but wasn't. He said he had looked for a review of his 2022 appraisal without success. Mr Purcell told the WRC in his evidence that he had been involved in 'calibrating' the performance review process in TikTok ahead of the mid-2023 round. He said that before that point, the reviews were 'very skewed towards positive across the board'. He said he felt Mr Saleh's rating was 'appropriate' in 2023 and that the 'recalibration' of performance reviews 'wasn't directed to the complainant or any individual'. The WRC heard that during the redundancy consultation period, Mr Saleh applied for four internal roles at the team leader level or higher, but did not apply for any open vacancies at the lower rank of individual contributor. Having failed to secure an alternative position, he was made redundant, the tribunal heard. In a legal submission, TikTok's barrister, Niamh McGowan BL, appearing instructed by A & L Goodbody, said Mr Saleh lost his job as part of a 'mass redundancy' which had been carried out in consultation with elected employee representatives. 'He's the only employee that has challenged the fairness of the process and the selection criteria. What we say is that the dismissal arose entirely from redundancy,' Ms McGowan said. 'There was an open, meaningful and fair collective consultation process which applied equally to every other person put at risk,' she added. The adjudicator, Ms Brennan, is now considering her decision on the case, which will be published by the WRC in due course.
