Latest news with #EmploymentEqualityAct1998
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Ice cream parlour worker pestered for dates by colleague gets €5,000 for sexual harassment
A former employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk, who said she quit after months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, has secured €5,000 in compensation. Leni Shanahan was awarded the compensation on foot of her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against LN Ice Cream Ltd, the operator of the shop on Drury Street in Dublin 2. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard that Ms Shanahan was a 21-year-old student at Trinity College Dublin when she was among the first five workers hired for the opening of the shop in March 2024, under the joint branding of Spilt Milk and Roots Acai. She told a hearing in May that, within a month of starting work together, an older colleague told her they had 'sexual chemistry', asked her out and remarked that he 'thought that sex with me would be electric'. Representing herself before the WRC, Ms Shanahan said she primarily had contact with Mr A, her alleged harasser, who was aged in his early 30s, when they were rostered to work together in the shop's basement production kitchen, where there was no CCTV. In the first week of April 2024, she said Mr A asked her to 'go out with him for a drink' in the course of what she called a 'very inappropriate conversation'. The following week, Mr A 'initiated a conversation about sexual experiences with her'. 'He stated that we had sexual chemistry and he thought that sex with me would be electric,' Ms Shanahan said. In late May of that year, Mr A 'made comments about my physical appearance and commented on my white skin, my light eyes, my hair, my lips and my body, my weight and what I wore – and continued the conversation like that, after I expressed discomfort', she said, before outlining a further series of interactions in the same vein. On her last shift before leaving to take holidays in August 2024, she said Mr A gave her a hug and asked her when she was due back, before telling her: 'I hope next time I see you, you won't be here,' before winking at her. The tribunal heard Ms Shanahan did not return to work as planned and resigned on September 10th that year before writing to her employer complaining of sexual harassment and then filing her WRC complaint. Ms Shanahan said a key factor in her decision to quit and pursue a claim at the WRC was hearing that her alleged harasser had made a remark to her boss, health food entrepreneur Dave Meehan, about becoming 'physically aroused' by her 'flirting'. She said she was told while she was away on leave that Mr Meehan had brought up the remark while talking to another employee, Mr B. 'As it was relayed to me, a comment was made [by Mr Meehan] about how [Mr A] would 'get hard' in conversations with me,' Ms Shanahan said, as she cross-examined her former employer. Mr Meehan said in evidence that, since Ms Shanahan's complaint, he had taken training in human resources. 'It's my first time having a shop in the city centre with such responsibility,' he said. 'I'd like to think for the most part I've led with love and care. I've made mistakes along the way like any other human being. Now I'm better equipped to deal with situations like this. That's all I can say – again, I've apologised, and I really do mean it,' he said. Ms Shanahan said she had 'no idea' there was a complaints process for harassment, as she was 'never shown' any policy document in that regard. She confirmed that she was not alleging sexual harassment on the part of Mr Meehan personally. Steven Murphy, another company director, said Ms Shanahan declined to be interviewed for his internal investigation. 'It was a tough situation, something I've never done before. Leni said one thing, [Mr A] said the other,' he said. There was 'no factual evidence we could find to uphold the complaint', he said, and Mr A had 'refuted' her allegations. In his decision, adjudicator Pat Brady wrote that the business could not rely on the statutory defence of having taken 'reasonable and practical steps' to prevent sexual harassment because there were 'no measures of any sort' in place. He wrote that Mr Murphy's investigation finding that Ms Shanahan's complaints did not meet the criteria of sexual harassment were 'only true if no weight is attached to [her] statements… or less weight than is attached to an alleged perpetrator's denial'. Mr Brady said it was 'unhelpful' that Ms Shanahan had declined to participate in the company probe and 'difficult to understand' why she had not complained sooner. 'These factors provide no comfort to the respondent, whose liability is not diminished, but I propose to take them into account in making my award of compensation,' he added. Upholding the claim, he awarded the worker €5,000.
Irish Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Worker pestered for dates by older colleague wins €5,000 for sexual harassment at WRC
An ex-employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk, who said she quit after months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, has won €5,000 in compensation. Leni Shanahan secured the compensation on foot of her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against LN Ice Cream Ltd, the operator of the shop on Drury Street in Dublin 2.
Sunday World
01-07-2025
- Business
- Sunday World
Shop worker who claimed he was left out of birthday whip-rounds loses racism claim
'I never saw a foreigner get flowers or presents,' the worker told a tribunal last month A shop worker who claimed racial discrimination saw him excluded as a recipient of workplace whip-rounds organised for those celebrating birthdays has lost his case. 'I never saw a foreigner get flowers or presents,' the worker told a tribunal last month. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has rejected a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the worker, Artur Czopek, against TJX Ireland Unlimited in a decision published today. The company, which trades under the TK Maxx brand, had denied allegations of discrimination, harassment and victimisation brought by Mr Czopek, a Polish man working as a part-time sales assistant at one of the firm's shops in Newbridge, Co Kildare since 2017. Presenting his own case at a hearing last month, Mr Czopek told the tribunal that an assistant manager was in the practice of arranging voluntary collections among staff to go towards gifts to colleagues for birthdays or significant events at the store. Mr Czopek said he contributed to these collections, but was 'never selected' on his birthday. Stock image Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 1st 'She always selected Irish employees, and at no time was a non-Irish national the beneficiary of a collection,' Mr Czopek told the WRC. A document presented to the WRC by the employer set out 17 collections done at the workplace from 2020 onward, marking 11 birthdays and six work anniversaries. Gifts were given for 18th, 30th, 40th, 50th and 65th birthdays, and to mark increments of 5, 10 and 15 years' service, the tribunal was told. Mr Czopek told the WRC that after complaining to the store manager, Scott Cooper in July or August 2024 he was assured the practice would cease, but it didn't. Cross-examining the complainant, counsel for the respondent Tiernan Lowey BL, appearing instructed by Hayes Solicitors LLP, put it to Mr Czopek that the collections were only done to mark 'milestone birthdays or events'. Mr Czopek said: 'I turned 40 and nothing happened. No, only selected people were receiving presents.' However, he agreed that the practice of doing the whip-rounds only started in 2020 and that he turned 40 in 2019. Mr Lowey put three examples of other workers at the store who got presents funded by the collections practice to Mr Czopek. These including a Latvian woman, a Polish woman, and a Russian man, he said. 'I don't deny these,' Mr Czopek said. After complaining, Mr Czopek said, he found that his usual Sunday shifts were cut, he was given 'unusual work' and that it took longer to get approval for bathroom breaks. Mr Czopek further alleged he was being harassed on the basis of his nationality by Mr Cooper during a four-week medical absence from work, when he was expected to report in weekly. Mr Czopek also claimed that there were 'no foreigners' being employed at the store since May 2024, but later qualified his position and said that since Mr Cooper took over, 'less non-nationals are employed'. Mr Cooper said hiring across all nationalities 'continues as normal' and denied that there was 'any fall-off in the recruitment of non-Irish nationals' since he took charge of the store. In her decision, adjudicator Bríd Deering wrote: 'The evidence shows that the occasions celebrated are objectively understood as milestone events and the beneficiaries of the collections were of various nationalities, not just Irish employees.' She wrote that Mr Czopek had failed to establish facts that would back up an inference of racial discrimination in connection with the practice of gift collections. Ms Deering, accepted the company's position that all of Mr Czopek's complaints were 'assertions unsupported by evidence' and rejected his case in its entirety.
RTÉ News
18-06-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Coca Cola marketer wins €68k for maternity discrimination
A marketing executive at Coca Cola who said she was "bullied" into taking a demotion from a management job to "nearly a graduate position" when she got back to work after having a baby has won €68,000 for maternity discrimination. Lisa Deveney told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing last winter that she thought she was going to return to her old job as premium spirits marketing manager, which she had held since 2018, at the end of maternity leave in January 2024. She said she suffered an "acute stress reaction" after her colleagues were told the employee brought in to cover her absence would be staying in her former role. Coca Cola HBC Ireland Ltd has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on foot of a complaint by Ms Deveney. The company had denied that complaint, along with a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, which was not upheld by the tribunal. Ms Deveney's evidence was that she had been absent for one year and 21 days on the day she was to go back to work on 22 January this year, owing to pregnancy-related health issues. It was her second period of maternity leave, she told the WRC. She said the first she was told that she would not be going back in as premium spirits marketing manager was at the end of a call the Friday before the week she was due back. "I was a bit nervous about going back. There hadn't been anything set up," Ms Deveney said. She said a manager, Mr A, told her: "You won't be returning to your role. We're looking for you to return to a new role." "He didn't know the [job] title at the time. I thought at the time it sounded like a demotion," Ms Deveney said, referring to concerns about the fact she would no longer be reporting to a manager at director level. "He said it would be good experience," Ms Deveney said. Her response was: "Listen I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram," and that she asked for the job specification. "Obviously, I'm pretty sideballed. I thought I was getting my job back," she said. She said that Mr A told her they would sit down and discuss the position when she was back in the office on Monday 22 January. The complainant said she expected to see a job spec to review over the weekend, but that this was not forthcoming. Ms Deveney said the next time she and the manager spoke was at a wider team meeting at 3.30pm that same day. "[He] started the call and said it was brilliant that I was back, that I was taking the premium spirits role and moving to [the other] team." "I assumed it was going to be a conversation, not a done deal – obviously it was," she said. "There's a vast difference in experience," she said of the new role description. "Three years' experience, that could be nearly a graduate position – for me that's quite a junior position," Ms Deveney said. She said she had to ask another colleague on the Tuesday to "hold off" on sending an email to the new team, telling her that she was "not accepting the position". "I felt I was bullied into taking a role," she said. Mr A's evidence to the WRC was that the role change was a process he and the complainant "were working through" prior to a formal offer being made. His evidence was that Ms Deveney was "at no time… asked to accept the position or to say that she wasn't interested". He said she told him she would "give it a go" and that he felt it was okay to move forward with it. He explained that he planned to meet with Ms Deveney about the role prior to making a formal offer, but was "incredibly busy" the day she returned to work on Monday 22 January. He said that he had outlined the role as a "proposal" at the team meeting that day and that Ms Deveney had come to him afterwards stating that she was "blindsided" and raising concerns about demotion. Mr A said he only became aware the following evening that the arrangement was drawing "an emotional response". Ms Deveney said she suffered a panic attack on the evening of Tuesday 23rd January and called in sick for the following day. She did not return to work prior to tendering her resignation in March 2024, the tribunal was told. Cillian McGovern BL, instructed by Aaron McKenna Solicitors for the complainant, said a worker hired in to cover his client's absence had been "left in that position" when his client ought to have taken the job back. Mary Fay BL, appearing for Coca Cola instructed by Arthur Cox solicitors, told the WRC the job Ms Deveney previously occupied had "just grown to such an extent it would not be reasonable to expect one person to do all the duties" and that the position had to be "split". In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens examined the job descriptions for Ms Deveney's former job and the new position. She noted that the grade and pay were the same for both jobs. However, the old role was described as a "manager" position, reporting to director level, while the new role was described as a "lead" position and did not involve managing a budget, the adjudicator noted. The "manager" position described responsibilities at a "strategic level" while the new "portfolio" lead had duties that were "very much operational", she wrote. She added that it was "not difficult to imagine how offensive" the suggestion that "a small portion" of the budget Ms Deveney once managed would be requested for her. Ms Owens concluded that the new post "constituted a demotion for the complainant". Ms Owens also wrote that she was "struck by the inconsistencies" in Mr A's account of his discussions with the complainant on the new role, while Ms Deveney had been "consistent throughout". She concluded on the balance of probabilities that the employer had "already decided that the complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options". Ms Owens called it a "fait accompli", and also rejected a further argument by the firm that the transfer was required because of organisational change. She concluded that Ms Deveney had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her former position after maternity leave. The adjudicator awarded €68,000 in compensation for the breach, just short of a year's basic salary.
Irish Independent
03-06-2025
- General
- Irish Independent
Chef whose colleague thrust into him ‘as if he was riding a horse' and let out a ‘yee-haw' loses discrimination claim against Dublin nightclub
While the tribunal accepted Mr Aksakal was subjected to 'unedifying' behaviour with 'undeniable sexual overtones', it found the Odeon took the incident 'very seriously' A chef has failed to have a Dublin nightclub held liable for the conduct of a colleague who thrust into him with his genital area 'as if he was riding a horse' and let out 'a loud 'yee-haw'' in an incident with 'undeniable sexual overtones' last year. Rejecting the worker's discrimination claim under the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found the Odeon Bar and Restaurant on Harcourt Street in Dublin 2, operated by Kivaway 2 Ltd, was not a workplace where sexual harassment was tolerated.
