Worker who bullied gay colleague awarded €3k over "procedural failure"
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found the hotel operator, Cantarini Limited "acted reasonably" by sacking the worker, Omar Mohammed Osman – but breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when it missed his email asking to exercise his right of appeal, and failed to respond.
Mr Osman, who was a night manager at the City Quay aparthotel in Dublin City Centre, was sacked on foot of findings that he was bullying a gay colleague, Mr D, because of his sexuality.
However, Mr Osman argued that he was accused of homophobia in a "thinly veiled attempt to penalise him" for raising concerns about how he was being treated by managers.
Mr D had complained that Mr Osman called him "a big homosexual" and "princess", the WRC noted. Mr D further alleged that Mr Osman called him by a nickname that "sounded like he was being referred to as an animal" – as well as whistling at him and mocking his accent.
Mr Osman's evidence to the WRC was that he has "no issue with homosexuals" and is "not homophobic", the adjudicator hearing the case noted.
He stated that he couldn't have whistled at his former colleague, because he did not "know how to whistle". He also told the tribunal that when he used the word "princess", he had been referring to a female colleague, the decision recorded.
His position was that none of the allegations made against him by Mr D were true.
The tribunal was told that prior to Mr D's complaint, Mr Osman had received a written warning by his manager for "letting the team down" by leaving work around 30 minutes into a shift in December 2023.
However, Mr Osman complained to the company that his line manager and other staff had been "in the back office when they should have been working" and that the manager was "shouting and cursing" at him, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Osman emailed the company's HR manager complaining of "bullying" from a night duty team leader, Mr L, on 14 March 2024, two days before he was interviewed for the first time in connection with the harassment complaint against him.
He formalised the grievance later in the month, before being interviewed again in connection with the dignity at work investigation.
Five days later, the disciplinary process concluded with findings that Mr Osman had been "bullying and harassing a colleague in relation to their sexual orientation and race", and the complainant was dismissed.
After the matter was heard by the WRC in January, Mr Osman's legal team furnished the WRC with an email he had sent asking to appeal the dismissal.
The respondent's head of human resources, Victoria Scrase, told the WRC there was no response because the person Mr Osman had written to had themselves left the company four days after Mr Osman's sacking.
Mr Osman's position was that it was "unfair to investigate a complaint made about him when he had been complaining for six months about how he was treated and nothing had been done".
His barrister, Joseph Bradley BL, appearing instructed by Melissa Wynne of Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that his client had been subjected to "aggressive and violent outbursts at work" and had been met with a "dismissive" stance when he first complained in October 2023.
"He was accused of homophobia, in a thinly veiled attempt to penalise him for raising concerns about how he was treated by managers," Mr Bradley submitted.
Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision that even at hearing before the WRC, Mr Osman seemed to be "unaffected by the possibility that he offended his colleague". She did not accept his explanation for his use of the word "princess", she wrote.
"A simple acknowledgement of the effect that his behaviour had on his colleague may have made a difference and could have avoided his dismissal," Ms Byrne added.
She said she could see no alternative except to find the company was "reasonable" to dismiss Mr Osman, a worker she wrote was "unable to see the effect of his behaviour… and apologise for the distress he had caused".
"It is very regrettable that he didn't seek some wise counsel before he engaged in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his dismissal," she added.
However, she concluded that because the company did not respond to an email from Mr Osman seeking to exercise his right of appeal, the dismissal was unfair because of this "procedural failure".
Ms Byrne rejected further claims of penalisation in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by Mr Osman.
Mr Osman's position was that he was only accused of homophobia and subjected to disciplinary action as a reaction to complaining about Mr L.
Ms Byrne concluded that that Mr Osman had played a part in the conflict among staff and that his grievances were addressed by management. He "was attempting to distract attention" from Mr D's complaint against him when he raised his grievances in March 2024, she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 days 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
2 days 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.
Irish Times
7 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.
