Restaurant employee awarded €17k after being made redundant during pregnancy
The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that McHugh's Restaurants had discriminated against Karen Condell on grounds of gender over her dismissal from her role as assistant manager at McHugh's restaurant in Portmarnock.
The WRC found that it had breached the Employment Equality acts 1998-2015 in its handling of the dismissal.
The company, which also operates McHugh's restaurant in Raheny and Blackbanks bar and grill in Kilbarrack, is part of a group which also operates a number of off-licences and Centra stores.
Ms Condell claimed the redundancy cited as the reason for her dismissal was not genuine.
She told the WRC that she informed her employer in June 2024 that she was pregnant.
Ms Condell said she was subsequently informed by the group's hospitality manager, Paul Foley, at the end of July 2024 that the restaurant in Portmarnock would be closing but she was reassured that redeployment options would be explored.
She gave evidence that no alternative role was found for her over the period she worked out her notice.
The company said a decision was taken to close the Portmarnock restaurant on July 30, 2024.
Mr Foley gave evidence that attempts were made to find alternative employment for affected staff.
He stated employees with over a year of service were subsequently offered roles elsewhere within the group but only one staff member with less than 12 months' service – a chef – was redeployed due to a specific vacancy matching their role.
Mr Foley said he had noted that "all our hospitality businesses are worryingly slow" when asked by Mr Condell in August 2024 about another role.
He told her on August 27, 2024 that no alternative jobs had been found.
Mr Foley said he mentioned that there might be a role in a deli although he had no authority over the group's grocery division, although he thought it might not be suitable given she was pregnant.
WRC adjudication officer, Breiffni O'Neill, said he was satisfied that there was prima facie evidence that Ms Condell was discriminated against as the restaurant's owner had failed to source an alternative role for her following the closure of the outlet in Portmarnock.
Mr O'Neill contrasted her situation with many of her colleagues from the Portmarnock restaurant who were not pregnant and who were given jobs elsewhere within the group.
He highlighted how the company had held no discussions with Ms Condell prior to notifying her she was being made redundant on July 30, 2024.
Mr O'Neill said she was also not provided with any opportunity to engage in what would have been a very belated consultation process about her redundancy in advance of her termination date.
He specifically pointed to how she had not been asked for any input or questioned about her transferable skills, qualifications or previous experience.
The WRC official noted that Mr Foley was unable to say if any other roles had become available within the group during her notice period which had not been offered to other staff from the Portmarnock restaurant.
"The respondent did not take sufficient and effective measures to avoid dismissing the complainant on the grounds of redundancy," said Mr O'Neill.
Ordering McHugh's Restaurants to pay Ms Condell compensation of €17,000 – the equivalent of 26 weeks' pay – for the negative effects of her discriminatory dismissal, Mr O'Neill said the sanction should be "effective, dissuasive and proportionate."
While a higher award might well be justified in the case, he said it took into account Ms Condell's relatively short period of employment and the relatively small nature of the respondent's business.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Former bogus self-employed RTÉ worker loses WRC case
A former bogus self-employed worker at RTÉ has lost his claim to retrospective pay and holiday entitlements from the broadcaster as a result of the misclassification of his employment status for over six years. The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear complaints made by RTÉ employee Joseph Kelly in relation to his former employment status because they had been submitted outside the statutory timeframe. Mr Kelly claimed he was originally required by RTÉ to register as a contractor with Revenue when he started working with the national broadcaster in September 2012. He claimed he lost out on entitlements to annual leave, sick leave, public holidays and incremental salary increases as a consequence of having to become self-employed. Represented by a lay advisor, Martin McMahon, Mr Kelly sought to have his loss of earnings for a period of just over six years corrected and the necessary adjustments to his current salary scale. Eight separate claims, which were lodged with the WRC on 9 October 2024, were brought under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. However, solicitor for RTÉ Séamus Given of Arthur Cox LLP, submitted that the cognisable period given the six-month statutory limitation of the legislation governing claims to the WRC was from April 10, 2024. Mr Given argued that Mr Kelly had been properly paid and given all his public holiday and annual leave entitlements over the relevant period. He also claimed that the WRC had no jurisdiction to hear or extend the time limit for submitting a complaint beyond a 12-month period. The WRC heard that Mr Kelly was hired as an independent contractor in September 2012 and paid €200 per day as a media content coordinator before being made an employee of RTÉ on 12 November 2018. He currently works as a news coordinator placed on point 12 of a 14-point salary scale which ranges from €37,567 to €59,862. Mr McMahon pointed out that the matter of bogus self-employment among workers at RTÉ was the subject of a review by an independent law firm as well as a review by the Department of Social Protection. He told the WRC that Mr Kelly was unaware of these reviews which resulted in RTÉ having to make a payment of approximately €30,000 to the Department of Social Protection to regularise his PRSI contributions. Mr McMahon said it had also led to Mr Kelly losing out on any entitlements to pay for working Sundays and public holidays as well as annual and sick leave and any other entitlement that permanent employees had. He claimed Mr Kelly was continuing to lose out due to the consequences of his initial employment misclassification. Mr McMahon said the complainant had made numerous efforts to resolve these matters without success. He argued that Mr Kelly was seeking to have his entitlements rectified and regularised so that he did not suffer any loss for the error which RTÉ accepted it had made. In his ruling, Mr Harraghy noted that Mr Kelly had provided extensive documentation in relation to the context and background of his claim and his attempts to seek a resolution with his employer. The WRC adjudicator said it was clear that Mr Kelly and Mr McMahon had committed a considerable amount of time and research on the issue. He observed that all the issues that were the subject of his complaints related to the period covering his employment status up to November 2018 when he was not afforded any of the rights that an employee would have accrued. However, Mr Harraghy said his role was to apply the law to the facts but he could only consider complaints submitted within the statutory timeframe provided for by the relevant legislation. He observed that WRC adjudication officers were not empowered to modify timeframes or accept complaints which fell outside timeframes outlined by law. For that reason, Mr Harraghy said he had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints made by Mr Kelly. During a two-day hearing which took place in December 2024 and June 2025, RTÉ was accused of engaging in "sharp practice" and attempting to "run down the clock" on a commitment to compensate those who had lost money as a result of bogus self-employment. Mr Kelly said that when he joined RTÉ in 2012 that the HR section told him he had to become a sole trader which also meant he was not allowed to apply for internal jobs at RTÉ. A senior HR manager at RTÉ, Angela McEvoy, said RTÉ had accepted a decision by the Department of Social Protection in relation to Mr Kelly's PRSI insurability. However, Ms McEvoy rejected the suggestion by Mr McMahon that RTÉ had got Mr Kelly to misrepresent himself to Revenue. Mr McMahon told the WRC that it was "not acceptable" for RTÉ to promise to follow the recommendations of an expert report in relation to bogus self-employed workers and now claim Mr Kelly's case was "out of time."
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Sommelier left short on wages "never heard from Mr Shanahan again"
The sommelier at famed Dublin restaurant Shanahan's on the Green has said he "never heard from Mr Shanahan again" after the owner said he was leaving for America last year with a promise to "resolve matters" when staff went unpaid. The worker, wine manager Cormac Thunder, was giving evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission earlier this year in a claim for over €4,272.24 in wages and notice not paid out to him when the restaurant shut abruptly last October. Mr Thunder's claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against JMS International Holdings, trading as Shanahan's on the Green, was upheld in a WRC decision published this week, bringing the total due to eight former staff of the high-end restaurant to nearly €40,000. Mr Thunder told a hearing in May he had been at Shanahan's for some thirteen and a half years when he and all his colleagues got an email titled "Shocked! Stunned!" from his employer. A copy of a letter attached to the email stated that the Revenue Commissioners had frozen the company's bank accounts "due to outstanding tax payment obligations". The business was "ceasing until further notice" and the company's owner John Shanahan was to "travel to the US to resolve matters", the email stated. "The complainant stated that he never heard from Mr Shanahan again," adjudication officer Elizabeth Spelman recorded in her decision. Mr Thunder told the Commission he tried to call Mr Shanahan twice but got no response. Ms Spelman noted that she too had attempted to phone Mr Shanahan twice on the day of the hearing, as there was no appearance on behalf of the restaurant when Mr Thunder's case was called on for hearing. "There was an engaged/disconnected ring tone," she wrote. She concluded that the respondent was properly on notice, and pressed on to hear the case that day without the respondent after allowing a for a grace period. She noted Mr Thunder's evidence that on top of his basic gross pay of €102 a shift, he was also earning an average of around €700 a week in gratuities and service charges, adding up to a gross weekly average earnings of €1,212.74. Mr Thunder had told the WRC he was "not paid the amount that was properly payable to him for his last week of employment," and also received no notice of the termination of his employment, Ms Spelman wrote. Ms Spelman wrote that while the Payment of Wages Act permitted a worker to recover unpaid tips or gratuities, they did not fall into the definition of wages, so had to be excluded for the purpose of calculating Mr Thunder's notice pay. She awarded Mr Thunder €3,060 under the Payment of Wages Act, based on six weeks at €510 a week, and further €1,212.74 for the non-payment in respect of his last week on the job. Mr Thunder and his former colleagues, waiters Paul Harte, Luke Caragher and David Byrne; chef Piotr Fraszczyk, assistant manager Angelo Lamberti, receptionist Eleanor Donovan, and company book-keeper Katherine Friel, are collectively due €39,727.17 on foot of WRC decisions since the closure.
The Journal
2 days ago
- The Journal
Financial executive awarded €22k over unfair dismissal for posting sexually explicit messages
A FINANCIAL SERVICES executive who was fired after posting sexually explicit messages from the mobile phones of two female colleagues has been awarded €22,500 in compensation for unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that the procedures used to dismiss the operation's manager were flawed and unfair 'from beginning to end.' The WRC found that the company's conclusion that the manager's conduct was 'highly severe sexual harassment' was 'excessive' and 'not proportional.' It heard evidence that the manager had taken the phone from the desk of a colleague – known as Employee A – on January 30, 2024 and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. The WRC ruled that the identities of the parties should not be disclosed due to the potential collateral damage to the company and its staff. The manager owned up to sending the message as a joke after the woman discovered it on her phone. She asked the company's chief executive for a meeting to discuss what had happened as both she and her husband had found the message 'vulgar and disgusting' and was worried other content from her phone had been accessed. The WRC heard the operations manager was suspended after a meeting on February 6, 2024 after she had submitted a formal complaint. Another female colleague, known as Employee B. who attended the meeting said afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The company's chief executive told the WRC that he had forgotten there had been a previous incident in September 2022 when the manager had accessed Employee B's phone while she was on holidays. Employee B had left her phone at work to allow the chief executive to access a banking app to authorise transactions. Employee B noticed two sexually offensive messages appeared to have been posted by her on one of her social media accounts as well as a message to one of her friends saying 'Hi, how are you?' The WRC heard the manager admitted he had posted the messages as a joke when Employee B contacted him to express concern that her phone had been hacked. Employee B said that her husband and father who were on holiday with her were also disgusted by the messages. While Employee B did not accept it was a joke, she acknowledged she did not take the matter further at the time. The WRC heard that the manager admitted he had done 'two stupid things' to an external investigator hired to examine the complaints. However, he claimed Employee B was conflicted by having used what she heard at the meeting on February 6, 2024 to make her own complaint and its inclusion was unfair. 'In the heat of the moment, I made two bad choices' he told an appeals committee and claimed his actions were in line with 'jokes or stuff' between staff. He claimed the use of the term 'sexual harassment' was grossly untrue and said he felt like 'the fall guy' for widespread sexual comments and innuendo between staff. Advertisement The manager – who was regarded as 'number 2' in the company – asked the appeals committee not to let 'two moments of madness' define him when he had been portrayed as 'some kind of evil predator.' His counsel, Michael Kinsey BL, claimed the process used to dismiss him was 'pre-judged, biased and procedurally flawed.' However, counsel for the financial services company, Lauren Tennyson BL, maintained the manager had been dismissed for gross misconduct due to findings of sexual harassment. Ms Tennyson said the sanction of dismissal was fair and proportionate and 'an inherently reasonable decision.' In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, observed that the manager had submitted no evidence to support his contention that sexual banter was commonplace among staff. Ms Byrne acknowledged that any reasonable employer would regard the manager's action in relation to Employee A as 'grossly inoffensive and irresponsible.' The WRC adjudicator said Employee B had dealt with the manager's conduct with maturity and forbearance over his use of her phone and had put him on notice that she would not tolerate such action in future. Ms Byrne said it was reasonable for the two women to have been angry, embarrassed, shocked and disappointed by his conduct which she agreed had met the definition of sexual harassment under the company's policy. 'He made unwanted sexual remarks which were offensive and degrading and which had no regard for the dignity of his colleagues,' she observed. However, Ms Byrne, she claimed the finding that what happened was a high severity of sexual harassment was 'too extreme.' She stressed that she did not wish to minimise the impact of the two incidents. Ms Byrne pointed out that the incident with Employee B was originally considered 'done and dusted.' She also observed that the chief executive had not taken any action to address the manager's conduct back in September 2022. Ms Byrne said it was difficult to understand why the chief executive had not 'at the very least' had a conversation with the complainant at the time about his conduct even in the absence of a formal complaint. 'His failure to do so lends some credibility to the complainant's assertion that there was a culture of doing nothing about unacceptable sexual banter,' she remarked. Ms Byrne claimed the retrieval of the earlier incident to bolster the case for dismissal was unfair, given the second incident was sufficiently serious to warrant consideration on its own. Ms Byrne said it was not open to the independent investigator to reach a conclusion regarding the scale of the offence or the severity of the sexual harassment. She claimed the disciplinary panel had relied on the investigator's opinion and failed in their duty to consider the manager's defence, while he also had not been allowed to appeal the investigation report. 'It is my view that a reasonable, prudent and wise employer may have reached a different decision and the complainant may have gone on to make a positive contribution to the organisation,' said Ms Byrne. Although the manager suffered €74,500 in lost earnings over the two years following his dismissal, the WRC limited the award of compensation to €22,5500 – representing 30% of the total – as he had contributed significantly to the decision to dismiss him. 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
