Latest news with #WorkplaceRelationsCommission
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Family ‘ghosted' by dementia patient's carer must pay €1,600 in unlawfully withheld wages
The nephew of a dementia patient who said her former live-in carer walked off the job in the middle of the night and 'ghosted' the family has been ordered to pay her over €1,600 after a ruling that he unlawfully withheld her final pay. The worker, Catarina Cardoso, secured the award under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against Ross Jenkins, who had employed her to care for his aunt at her home in Galway starting in July 2024. Mr Jenkins told the Workplace Relations Commission his elderly aunt suffered from advanced dementia, required 'pretty severe antipsychotics', and had been alone for 24 hours after Ms Cardoso quit on August 23rd, 2024. Ms Cardoso said she was 'ashamed' that she 'felt the need to run' when she left the employment, but said she was suffering from anxiety when she was left alone with the patient and that she had come to the point of 'carer burnout'. READ MORE She said she got a payslip detailing all of her working hours in August 2024. 'I have yet to see that pay or an explanation on why I don't have it,' she told a WRC hearing in March this year. Cross-examining his former employee, Mr Jenkins said: 'One of the biggest questions I had was: why were we ghosted?' 'Immediately after Catarina gave in her notice – as she calls it, from the family's perspective, we were caught completely off notice – she left at 9pm at night, left a vulnerable adult who has advanced dementia,' he said. 'Why did you stop communication immediately after leaving?' he asked. 'I believe at the time I was very anxious. I would call it carer burnout. I couldn't do it any more, and I was extremely ashamed. I failed to face you because I knew what I was doing,' Ms Cardoso replied. Ms Cardoso told the tribunal that she informed the family she wanted to leave four days before she went. The family's position was that she had agreed to stay on until they found a new carer, the tribunal heard. 'I had to leave, I couldn't continue doing that any more. I was afraid, because I did leave a vulnerable adult, I did,' Ms Cardosa said. In his own direct evidence, Mr Jenkins said his aunt had 'pretty advanced dementia' and the fact that Ms Cardosa left at such short notice 'put a vulnerable adult at risk'. 'She ceased to exist once she left … I tried calling, emailing, she'd dropped off the face of the planet. When we understood that she'd not been giving medication to a vulnerable adult, we weren't exactly keen on paying someone for doing that,' Mr Jenkins added. Adjudicator Monica Brennan wrote in her decision that the family seemed to be relying on Ms Cardosa's actions as a basis for withholding her pay. However, there was no contract clause providing for pay deductions, nor any evidence the employer had written to Ms Cardosa with 'particulars of the act or omission' in advance of making the deduction from her wages as the law required. 'I find that the deduction from the properly payable wages is unlawful and the complaint is therefore well founded,' she concluded. Ms Brennan directed the family to pay Ms Cardosa the sum of €1,650.78 within six weeks of her decision.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Bord Gáis engineer unfairly dismissed over side work allegations wins €5,000
An engineer has won over €5,000 for unfair dismissal after being sacked by Bord Gáis over claims he was offering to do cash work on the side for its customers. Kieran O'Leary, who was sacked from his €60,000-a-year job as a service engineer for Bord Gáis in January 2024, had told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) there was 'no evidence' he accepted cash from a woman who later complained about him. Bord Gáis human resources manager Graham Bailey had claimed there were 'multiple instances' of Mr O'Leary 'offering to carry out work in a personal capacity for vulnerable female customers', Mr Bailey said. The company's position was that Mr O'Leary had breached a competition clause in his contract of employment. READ MORE The WRC was told Bord Gáis had received complaints from three customers who had been visited by Mr O'Leary on dates in 2022 and 2023. Giving evidence, Mr O'Leary said that he was called out to a property in April 2022 where the lady of the house had asked about having showers and taps fitted. 'She asked if I did. I said I did, I came back out of work hours to give her a price for that, but the job never went ahead,' he said. He said the customer later complained to his line manager, who called him to a meeting and asked him to explain a 'printout'. 'I told him I'd offered to fit a shower and taps for this customer. He explained it wasn't something I was supposed to do. I thought my contract stated I wasn't to work in direct competition with Bord Gáis,' he said. 'At that point I'd been given the understanding of what the contract meant. That was the last time I ever offered my services,' he said. His position was that the complaint had been resolved informally by his employer. Mr O'Leary said that he was asked a year later to explain why a customer had 'alleged she had paid me an amount of money for a part I'd fitted'. 'When I went to this job, everything was done by the book ... everything in that house was charged for and fitted by Bord Gáis,' he said. He said that on a second visit to the property in February 2023, he realised the customer's boiler was missing a 'grommet'. 'That grommet renders the boiler dangerous. You wouldn't be able to leave the boiler on, because it wouldn't be sealed,' Mr O'Leary said. 'I was pretty sure I had one of them at home,' he said – adding that he went home, fetched it and installed it. He said this was to 'save' the customer the difficulty of having her boiler turned off for the two weeks he said it would take to order the part in. Mr O'Leary produced a small black item around the size of a wine bottle cork in a plastic package from his pocket and held it up for the hearing, and told the hearing it was an example of the part he fitted. 'That grommet would be somewhere between one pound and five pounds to order,' he said. Next, in March 2023, Mr O'Leary said a difficulty arose with another customer as there was a casing around her boiler. He said his employer had 'always instructed that we shouldn't remove a casing' and she replied that 'everyone else did'. 'We got over that. I probably was a bit rude,' he said. He said he noticed there was a difficulty with a circuit board on the customer's boiler of a type that was carried as stock in his van, which he brought in and fitted. Again, a complaint followed, he said. 'They stated that I firstly fitted a second-hand part, which was later disproved by the inspector; [then] that I'd offered to do it for cash. I'm not sure how I'd be able to do it any cheaper than Bord Gáis,' he said. He told the WRC that the boxes for parts kept as van stock 'always get damaged'. He said he opened the sealed bag inside the box in front of the customer. 'She alleged she gave me €150. There's absolutely no evidence to say that happened. There's nothing to show I've ever done anything than my job that I was supposed to do with Bord Gáis,' Mr O'Leary said. The complainant explained that the April 2022 matter was then 're-tabled' by the company during an investigation meeting in July 2023. He said he made it 'clear' this had already been 'dealt with' by his line manager but that his concerns were 'palmed off'. The tribunal heard the investigation was paused when Mr O'Leary went on sick leave. 'I'd had a nervous breakdown,' he said. He also took issue with the fact that a formal grievance he raised about the investigation process did not proceed when he was later certified fit to participate, but that the disciplinary process did go ahead. Adjudicator Dónal Moore wrote in his decision that customer complaints had to be 'treated with some caution in making a serious decision on a person's livelihood'. Mr Moore said there was 'an issue as to how much weight can be given to these', but concluded there was 'no logical reason' that customers would fabricate similar complaints and concluded there was a case to be answered. The adjudicator found Mr O'Leary's use of his own parts 'does not appear to be warranted regardless of its well-meaning or intention' and that the claimant bore some fault in this regard. However, Mr Moore said it was 'not appropriate' that the 2022 complaint – which he said 'never led anywhere' – was 'conflated' with the 2023 complaints. He upheld Mr O'Leary's complaint and awarded him compensation of €5,289.08 under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Irish Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Salesman 'deceived by false promises' over unpaid wages wins €27,000 at WRC
A tech firm has been ordered to pay over €27,000 in wages illegally withheld from a salesman who told a tribunal he was 'consistently deceived by false promises' to pay him. In a decision published on Monday the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decided to redact the identity of the video company to 'encourage' it to 'bring the matter to a close without adverse publicity'. It follows a statutory complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by the salesman, who resigned last year with the company owing him some five months' salary and commission. The salesman joined the company in April 2023 on a contract which paid a base salary of €75,000 and commission of up to €55,000 annually. READ MORE The tribunal heard difficulties first arose when his wages were not paid in November 2023, but that this was rectified the following month. There was further non-payment in January and February 2024, the salesman told a hearing earlier this month, and in March, that he had 'less than half' his normal salary payment. His salary did come in April that year, but went unpaid in May and June 2024, he told the WRC. Bobby Healy on why Manna drone delivery could be the 'biggest technology company in the world for its space' Listen | 67:08 In July 2024, the salesman handed in notice of resignation effective 30 August, 2024. When he left on that date, he was owed €19,450 in salary and €7,979 in commission, net of tax and statutory deductions, the tribunal heard. The salesman presented the WRC with emails and WhatsApp messages he exchanged with senior executives in the company, all of whom had confirmed to him that he was owed the money, he said. The company had been able to pay him two months' wages prior to his resignation after applying for a loan in August 2024, the tribunal noted. Around 10 weeks after the claimant left, he had an email from the CEO confirming that half of the outstanding sum would be 'available by the end of the week' and that the rest would be 'available in December [2024]'. WRC adjudicator Catherine Byrne noted that when the case was first called on in April 2025, the salesman 'agreed to an adjournment when his former employer indicated that they would shortly be in funds'. When the salesman's case was heard earlier this month, he showed Ms Byrne correspondence from May 2025 in which an executive at the firm stated that the company was about to draw down funds which would allow it to pay him. 'However, no money was transferred to the complainant,' she said. The salesman told the WRC in a submission that he had suffered 'stress and inconvenience' because of the failure to pay the wages he was owed. He had spent an 'inordinate amount of time writing to various managers' and had been 'consistently deceived by false promises', he added. Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne decided to anonymise her decision on the case 'to encourage the [company] to bring the matter to a close without adverse publicity'. Ms Byrne wrote in her decision: 'It is extremely regrettable that the complainant had to spend so much time and energy trying to exert his basic entitlement to be paid his wages, an issue about which there is no dispute.' The company had made an 'illegal deduction' from the claimant's wages by failing to pay him the €27,429 owed to him when he resigned on 30 August last year, she found. Upholding the complaint, Ms Byrne directed the company to pay the salesman the sum as compensation under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
The Journal
20-06-2025
- Business
- The Journal
Shop cleared of discriminating against children who tried to make €68 payment in 10c and 20c coins
A SHOP HAS BEEN cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked if they had anything larger when they tried to pay for €68 worth of goods with 10 and 20 cent coins. The father of the two children – a boy and a girl – submitted a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on their behalf and alleged that his children were discriminated against as they were members of the Traveler community. The identities of both parties have been anonymised due to the involvement of children. It had been alleged that the two children were refused service at the shop because they were members of the Travelling community and that the children had suffered embarrassment with both locals and friends as a result of the incident. In a decision published today, the WRC said the complaint was 'not well founded' and that the cashier was 'reasonable' in asking if the children had larger value coins to complete the purchase. The shop in question is family-owned, has operated for over 60 years and employs 70 people. The incident happened on 22 December, 2023, which the shop said is one of its busiest days of the year in the run-up to Christmas. The shop said that at around 1.30pm, two children approached a cashier with a number of items which totalled €68 and that the children initially paid in €1 and €2 coins, as well as 10c and 20c coins. The shop said the cashier counted the coins and it came to €26.80 and that this 'took some time to count'. It is the shop's position that when the cashier asked if the children had the rest of the money, the young girl said she had more coins in a small purse. The cashier said the purse contained a large amount of 10c and 20c coins and that she then asked the girl if she had notes to make up the difference – the young girl did not but said she would ask her father who was in the car. The young girl went outside and returned with her father and the cashier said a 'large queue was building up at her till' in the meantime. The shop said the children's father 'took issue with the cashier' and that the cashier 'found him to be very confrontational'. The shop said the father asked why the cashier 'wasn't taking their money' but that the cashier 'made it clear she was not refusing to take his money but asked if he had any notes as it was a very busy day'. Advertisement The shop said it has CCTV footage which shows the father 'holding large denomination notes during the interaction with the cashier but chose not to use them'. One of the store managers was then approached by the father, who said the cashier had 'refused to take the coins'. The manager said that while the complainant 'had notes, they wished to pay in full using coins'. The manager is said to have explained that given the time of the year, it would be difficult for the cashier to count that amount of coinage and asked if the father could 'count out the exact amount in coins or count it into five or ten euro batches'. The shop also offered coin bags to count the monies into but said the complainant again argued that the shop was 'refusing to accept our payment'. The shop said it tried to find a solution and that an apology was offered and that a voucher was also offered as a 'goodwill gesture' for the 'misunderstanding' but this was refused. The shop said it had never had a complaint against them and that the complainant was 'not treated in a manner less favourable than any other customer'. The shop added that when it was clear there was an intention to use small coins to pay for a balance of up to €40, the cashier asked if the balance could be paid with notes and that this was 'interpreted' as a refusal to serve. WRC Adjudication Officer Peter O'Brien said the 'core issue' is whether the cashier deliberately did not complete the transaction because they were members of the Traveller community. O'Brien deemed it was 'reasonable and not prejudicial of the cashier, with a queue building up, to ask the minors had they larger value coins or notes to complete their purchases'. He noted that the transaction was put on hold while the children went out to their father and that from the evidence supplied by the cashier, she never refused to complete the purchase but asked if there was a more convenient way to pay. O'Brien described this as a 'normal exchange between a cashier and customer' and that from the available evidence, the transaction was cancelled at the father's request. He also noted that repeated offers of apology or attempts to resolve the situation were not accepted. It was deemed that 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'. The WRC concluded that the cashier did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct and that her actions were 'reasonable' and 'could have applied to any member of society she was engaging with in the circumstances described'. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
20-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c 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 unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on December 22nd, 2023, because they were members of the Travelling Community. The claim was ruled 'not well-founded' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published on Friday, which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at about 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for a girl and boy whose father was outside the premises in a car. READ MORE 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 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 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 'turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation'. The father gave evidence that the children 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 on Friday 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 was 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.
