Latest news with #constructivedismissal
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Receptionist called a 'lazy b***h' by co-worker says apology wasn't ‘genuine'
A medical clinic receptionist claims she was forced to quit because her employer failed to address a 'toxic' work atmosphere after she said a colleague repeatedly called her a 'lazy b***h' to her face. The worker, Gwen Doyle, has complained that the apology she got from her colleague after a workplace investigation was 'not genuine' and that the other worker was simply 'told what to say'. In a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, Ms Doyle has alleged she was constructively dismissed in October 2024 from the Athboy Family Practice in Co Meath, where she had worked for 19 years. Her trade union, Siptu, told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing on Tuesday that the clinic's management denied her natural justice in investigating her formal grievance about the incident and failed to address a 'toxic' workplace environment READ MORE That left her with 'no other option' except to consider herself constructively dismissed, it was submitted on her behalf. The employer is contesting the case – its solicitor, Terry Gorry, stating that it made 'strenuous efforts' to resolve the formal grievance. Giving evidence to the WRC on Tuesday, Ms Doyle said that on a date in April 2024, she was on a call dealing with a repair of a computer when her colleague turned to her and said: 'Answer the phone, you lazy b***h.' Ms Doyle said her reply was: 'Sorry, what did you say?' Her colleague then said: 'Answer the phone, you lazy b***h, you do nothing in here,' the complainant said. She said she went and reported the remark to the practice manager, Kirsty Sanderson, who sent her to the canteen. 'I couldn't speak. I was in bits over the whole thing,' Ms Doyle said. She said she agreed when Ms Sanderson proposed getting the other receptionist to apologise. The other receptionist then came to the canteen and Ms Sanderson told her: 'You'll have to apologise,' Ms Doyle said. 'I've no intention of apologising. You are a lazy b***h,' was the other worker's reply, the complainant said. Ms Sanderson then made reference to 'numerous complaints' about Ms Doyle, the complainant added. The practice manager then said: 'You have no interest in your job. You're bringing your family life into it,' the complainant added. 'I was put in a back room and told to stay there. [The other receptionist] was told to go to reception,' Ms Doyle said. Ms Doyle said she remained in the room until lunchtime, when Ms Sanderson went to her and asked whether she was going to for her lunch. On her return, Ms Doyle said she told Ms Sanderson: 'I need a list of the complaints against me.' 'She said: 'You're not getting them.' I said: 'I want a written apology,'' Ms Doyle added. She said she then returned to her normal place of work at the clinic's reception and worked until 5pm, but that it was a 'toxic environment'. The tribunal heard Ms Doyle took sick leave and remained on sick leave thereafter, except for one day when she was persuaded by a colleague to return because the clinic was 'stuck'. 'It was absolutely horrendous,' she said. Ms Doyle said both Ms Sanderson and the other receptionist apologised to her following a formal grievance process that was completed in July 2024. She said the other receptionist told her: 'Sorry for what I said.' 'That was it, and she just walked out,' Ms Doyle said. 'Kirsty said: 'I'm sorry for what I said, but I refute some of the things you said in your report,'' she added. 'They were not genuine. Both apologies were not genuine. They were told what to say,' the complainant said. 'I could not go back into the work environment. It was too toxic. It wouldn't have been good for my health, mentally or physically,' she said. Ms Doyle's trade union advocate, Peter Glynn said the grievance investigation was 'shallow and lacked substance'. He added that when Ms Doyle took issue with the grievance outcome, she received correspondence stating that the incident had been 'dealt with' and the matter was 'closed'. This remained the position after Ms Glynn got her trade union got involved, Mr Glynn submitted, though the employer did state that it was 'willing to look at rosters to identify the best working environment', he added. Ms Doyle's position was that no matter what hours she was given, she would still be required to work with Ms Sanderson. The tribunal heard the employer objected when the union referred the case to the WRC for consideration under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in September last year. 'Mediation was sought and offered. The employer failed to engage,' Mr Glynn said. At this stage, Ms Doyle was left 'no other option' except to conclude she had been constructively dismissed, he added. Adjudication officer Michael McEntee has adjourned the matter to later in the summer, when Mr Gorry is expected to continue with his cross-examination of the complainant. Ms Sanderson is expected to give evidence at a later stage in the case, as are Dr Anthony Ryan and another member of the clinic's staff, Catherine Dolan.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Work from home arrangements under microscope
The Employment Relations Authority has found a worker wasn't unjustifiably disadvantaged or constructively dismissed after he was ordered back into the office three days a week, when he'd been working from home four out of five days. The Employment Relations Authority said there was no permanent arrangement so no duty to continue it. Meanwhile the PSA is still waiting for an Employment Relations Authority hearing over the government's directive that work from home for public servants is not a right and should not compromise performance. Employment Lawyer at Anderson Lloyd, James Cowan spoke to Lisa Owen. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
Daily Mail
28-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Work from home is allowed to supervise your gardener, tribunal rules as company director wins £30,000 payout
Employees who ask to work from home because they are having work done on their garden should not be disciplined, a tribunal has ruled. IT director Ben Wicken had been scheduled to meet company founder Christophe Boudet in person to try to resolve a work disagreement, the employment tribunal heard. But the pair fell out when he asked to hold it instead via Teams - as his gardeners were due to come over and he needed to work from home for the rest of the week as a result. Mr Boudet told the tribunal he was 'very disappointed' by this as it made it seem as if Mr Wicken was not taking the process seriously. Shortly afterwards, his co-directors announced that they had 'lost trust and confidence' in the technical director, leading to his eventual resignation. Mr Wicken has won a £30,692 payout after winning his constructive dismissal case against IT services company Akita Systems. It is the latest in a series of bizarre office behaviours to be deemed lawful or unlawful by employment judges. Calling a man bald or sending an unwanted birthday card are among those that have been deemed unlawful but air kissing a colleague was allowed. The tribunal, held in Croydon, south London, heard that Mr Wicken began working at the company in March 2014 as a junior network manager and later became the technical director. In March 2022 he got into an argument with Mr Boudet about holiday cover. An external HR specialist, Maria Cruse, who witnessed the argument, offered to carry out mediation between the two directors to help them improve their communication. The tribunal heard their first mediation meeting went well and they continued to meet regularly. 'The next mediation meeting was due to take place on 3 May 2022,' the hearing was told, 'but [Mr Wicken] called Mr Boudet and asked if they could move the meeting to a Teams meeting and change the time to 11am as he needed to work from home for the rest of the week because he had work being done in the garden and so he would need to be there. 'The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Boudet that he was very disappointed about this and told [Mr Wicken] that it appeared he was not taking the process seriously. [He] did then attend the office.' The tribunal heard that Mr Wicken felt 'attacked' during the meeting and broke down in tears following an 'off the record' discussion with his boss afterwards. He was asked to draft an 'improvement plan' for his relationship with the founder, which he described as a 'sham', before submitting a grievance which was later closed amid a row that the external HR consultant asked to investigate was a long-standing friend of Mr Boudet. This was the 'last straw' for Mr Wicken, who had been off sick for two months, and he chose to resign on 28 June instead of returning to Akita Systems. He listed the reasons for his resignation as conduct towards him since February, a 'sham' performance improvement plan, and the appointment of the consultant to investigate his grievance. The tribunal found Mr Wicken's treatment did lead to his constructive unfair dismissal, in particular comments made by Ms Cruse about his co-directors losing trust in him, the instructing of HR consultant, and the decision to close his grievance. Employment Judge Lisa Burge said that although Mr Wicken acknowledged that prioritising his gardener over the one-to-one meeting was a 'mistake' it wasn't 'blameworthy' on his part. She said: 'The tribunal concludes that [Mr Wick] did not contribute to his dismissal... '[Akita] submits that [Mr Wick] admitted that his decision to prioritise arrangements with his gardener over attendance at a one-to-one mediation follow-up meeting was a mistake and that he refused to cooperate with the grievance investigation. 'However, these actions, in the context of the facts found and detailed above, do not constitute 'culpable or blameworthy' conduct.'
