Latest news with #UnfairDismissalsAct1977
RTÉ News
19 hours ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Bra saleswoman wins €15,800 for constructive dismissal
A lingerie saleswoman who said she was forced to quit her job of nearly 20 years over the health impact of workplace stress due to a "toxic" work environment at a Dublin department store has won €15,800 for constructive dismissal. Karrin Breslin was awarded the sum on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Chantelle Lingerie Ltd, the operator of a concession in the lingerie department of the unidentified store. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded Ms Breslin her full losses after ruling that the international lingerie brand repudiated her contract of employment by failing to address grievances about under-staffing and rostering while her health deteriorated over the course of two years. It was submitted on behalf of Ms Breslin – an employee of the brand since 2004 – that when the department store reopened in May 2021 following the Covid-19 lockdown, her section was down to 12 staff with just two full-time, compared with 10 full-timers out of 17 pre-pandemic. The tribunal heard Ms Breslin had moved from north Co Dublin to Co Wexford during the pandemic closure. She asked at that stage to be given a set working day of 9am to 5.30pm, she said. Her employer's response was that "this was not a request that could be granted given the opening hours of the shop and the need for a fair departmental roster", the tribunal was told. The tribunal was told that the department store, rather than the lingerie brand, was responsible for setting the roster governing Ms Breslin's working hours. "I feel my mental and physical health has deteriorated… I don't have a good work/life balance and it's going to get worse due to the late closing times coming back again," she wrote. Ms Breslin's case was that her job was made "overwhelming and physically hard" because of these issues and that she began to experience anxiety, low mood, high blood pressure and gastrointestinal problems "as a result of work-related stress". Following a medical absence in June 2022, Ms Breslin again wrote to her employer and set out that because the department was so "understaffed" that sales were being lost because customers were walking out without being served. Her employer's position was this was "a commercial point and not a personal grievance". Ms Breslin had seven periods of certified medical leave between January 2022 and the summer of 2023, the tribunal heard. In an exchange of emails with her employer during her fifth period of medical leave in June 2023, Ms Breslin said she believed her illness was "work-related". "There are major obstacles stopping me from doing a good job and this has been going on for gotten far worse in the last 4 months and definitely having a negative impact on my working life due to a stressful and sometimes toxic work environment," she wrote. In responding correspondence, she was told: "I am hoping you can get to the bottom of your sickness so you feel better," the WRC heard. The tribunal heard that Ms Breslin worked her last shift on 25 June 2023 and ultimately did not return to work before she tendered her resignation on 31 October that year. Chantelle's managing director, who gave evidence, said she had assumed Ms Breslin would return to her job when she got better and that her resignation "was pleasant and made no mention of issues or other employees' behaviour". When it was put to her in cross-examination that Ms Breslin had told her she was "burned out", the managing director said she "understood there was an issue" of work-related stress but that she "did not relate this" to Ms Breslin's resignation. Asked what she had done to respond to the staffing issues raised by Ms Breslin, the managing director said these were "a matter for the shop". In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens wrote Ms Breslin had been raising "serious concerns for her physical and mental health" starting in October 2021. While the managing director made efforts to resolve "minor issues" for Ms Breslin around medical certs and annual leave, "more complex matters" around roster problems and staff shortages "were never addressed", Ms Owens wrote. "I consider that the respondent failed in its duty of care to the complainant to protect her health, safety and wellbeing while at work," Ms Owens wrote. She considered the firm's failure to respond adequately to amount to "repudiation of contract", upholding Ms Breslin's unfair dismissal claim. Ms Owens awarded the claimant €15,800, her full losses for five months' unemployment. A further complaint of disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Act was ruled out of time by the Commission. Ms Breslin was represented by Aisling Irish of Parker Law Solicitors in the case, while human resources consultancy Tom Smyth and Associates appeared for the employer.
RTÉ News
7 days ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Head of UN bureau 'reassigned' after complaints, WRC told
The former head of the United Nations' migrant assistance bureau in Dublin was "reassigned because of her behaviour in Ireland" after over a dozen staff complaints and resignations, a tribunal has been told. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) it is invoking diplomatic immunity in response to a claim for constructive dismissal by Charlene Maleady, a senior employee who quit in 2023. Her lawyers have argued their client was knocked back so far in her career by retaliation and harassment from the IOM's former chief of mission in Ireland, Lalini Veerassamy, that the UN agency cannot avail of immunity as an international organisation in the case under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Giving evidence, Ms Maleady told the WRC that she worked her way up the ranks after joining as an intern in 2011, securing promotion to her €67,000-a-year job as national protection and programme officer. In her statutory complaint to the tribunal, Ms Maleady wrote: "The chief of mission got reassigned because of her behaviour in Ireland because, at this stage, 13 complaints had gone in, and they sent over a new chief of mission." She said there was a "significant" increase in working hours when Ms Veerassamy took over in Dublin in 2019, citing WhatsApp messages about work matters as early as 7am and as late as 11pm and late-night work "becoming the norm". "You'd get messages Friday evening for what she wanted Saturday morning, and if you had a problem with it, she'd say: 'It's not how the international office would work. Staff were being put under pressure [and] being openly scolded," she said. She said that after she made contact with a UN HR office in November or December 2020, the HR department phoned Ms Veerassamy and "told her these issues had been flagged". "She called a meeting in January [2021], she said she knew who made them, they were unfounded, and she would address them within the mission," Ms Maleady said. Ms Maleady said she had just secured promotion to a local management grade as national protection and programme officer and that since her appointment had been cleared by headquarters, the mission chief had to give it to her. However, Ms Maleady said Ms Veerassamy called her in and said that her agreed duties in the post were being changed, she said. She said that from that point onward she was "increasingly excluded from activities in the office" and was left with a single project to run. Junior colleagues were "actively encouraged to report me for things", "allowed to speak to me however they wanted" and would "reprimand me on calls", she said. She said the "constant humiliation" only broke when Ms Veerassamy departed in May 2023. She said UN human resources in Geneva spoke to Ms Veerassamy informally "to say she needed to pull back on her management style and be more cognisant of staff welfare". "In the meantime, I was linked in with the occupational health unit, who wrote a report on the Irish office. They'd serious concerns about what was going on… they'd asked Geneva to step in and reel her in, effectively," Ms Maleady continued. Ms Maleady said when she took maternity leave between autumn 2021 and summer 2022, she saw that her role as national protection officer was advertised by the organisation. She found on her return that her desk, which she called "the best seat in the house", her staff, and her work had all been reassigned, except for a single project she managed, she said. "You work so hard, and then to go from being top of your career to being nobody, effectively. [Colleagues] got told to keep away from me: I was a troublemaker, I was a liar, I had an agenda, that I was racist," Ms Maleady said. She said she had hoped that when the new chief of mission in Ireland, Zuzana Vatralova, arrived in June 2023 that she would get back to where she was. Her evidence was that Ms Vatralova was clear that she would have to wait for new projects to come up and interview for them when they arose. "I effectively was starting from scratch where I had to prove myself to a new chief of mission. I'd worked 11 years working my way up. I couldn't start from scratch. I was rock bottom, I could barely string a sentence together, and my confidence was gone," she said. Ms Maleady said she had attempted to have her grievances addressed through various offices in the UN, including human resources, an internal ombudsperson, the UN ethics and conduct office, and eventually the Office of the Inspector General. She said she ultimately resigned in September 2023 and secured a position in the Irish civil service. The Office of the Inspector-General ultimately told her in April 2024 that it would not investigate her complaint of retaliation "because I hadn't reported my grievance to my manager". Adjudication officer Kara Turner noted that the IOM had not attended the hearing but had written to the WRC making a "procedural immunity argument" based on a 2015 co-operation agreement between the State and the United Nations, which was covered by a statutory instrument. Cillian McGovern BL, appearing for the complainant instructed by Crushell & Co Solicitors, said the agreement did not confer "absolute" immunity. He said his client spent 11 years "building herself up" to a "dream job" in international relations, only to face "entirely retaliatory" behaviour from Ms Veerassamy and be reduced to a "lowly position… photocopying and answering the door beside the fire escape". "That takes the complainant into the position where her work was not truly touching the business of a foreign government," Mr McGovern said. He added that there had been "no accountability" when his client pursued the matter through the UN's internal processes in the hope she might be reinstated. Ms Turner said she would write to the parties with her decision "in due course", and closed the hearing.
RTÉ News
02-07-2025
- 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.
Sunday World
29-05-2025
- Business
- Sunday World
Builder who called his boss a ‘sneaky rat' wins €9k for unfair dismissal
'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.
RTÉ News
28-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Builder fired after calling his boss a "sneaky rat" to his face
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 5 April 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. 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 Donohue 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 5 April 2024 but was not dismissed from his employment until 19 April. 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 5 April 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" on 5 April 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 Donohue 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.
