Sommelier left short on wages "never heard from Mr Shanahan again"
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
a day 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
a day 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
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Manager sacked after ‘joke' sext on colleague's phone gets reduced WRC award
A tribunal has made a reduced award for losses from unfair dismissal to a manager sacked after he admitted taking a colleague's phone and sending her husband a 'sexually explicit' text message as 'a joke'. In an anonymised decision just published, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) upheld a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against the man's former employer after concluding it was 'too extreme' to declare that the man's conduct was 'at the high end of sexual harassment'. He said he was being made the 'fall guy' for a workplace culture of 'sexual comments and innuendo' at the financial services company as he pleaded to its board to be let keep his €60,000 a year job, the tribunal heard. The tribunal heard that in January 2024, the complainant took one of his direct reports' mobile phones from her desk and sent a 'sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband', which the other worker, Ms A, found out about as she left to go home. READ MORE The complainant 'owned up' and claimed it was 'meant to be a joke', the tribunal noted. Ms A raised it with the CEO of the organisation as soon as he returned from leave, telling him she and her husband considered the message 'vulgar and disgusting'. The text of the message was not included in a WRC decision document published on Friday. The CEO called the claimant to a meeting and suspended him with pay a week after the event, the tribunal heard. The tribunal noted the evidence of the CEO that another senior employee, Ms B, who came to the suspension meeting as a witness, remarked afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The CEO told the tribunal he had forgotten about a previous similar incident involving the same manager in September 2022, and told Ms B: 'If we're to do anything about this, I need it documented.' Ms B later wrote a letter of complaint setting out that she had left a personal device in the company's finance office when she went on holiday in September 2022 so a colleague could use a banking app installed on it, the tribunal heard. While she was away, the man had posted 'two sexually offensive messages' on her social media account, the complaint letter stated. Ms B made contact with the manager and told him not to use the banking app, as she feared the phone was 'hacked'. The complaint letter set out that the complainant 'pretended to be serious at first, and then he began laughing and [said] he had posted the messages as a joke', the tribunal heard. Ms B wrote in her complaint letter that she was 'extremely annoyed', but after arranging with the CEO for a dedicated mobile phone for the finance office, took the matter no further. Michael Kinsley BL, appearing instructed by Daniel O'Connell of Kean's Solicitors in the matter, told the Commission the company had failed to examine the position advanced by his client about the 'culture and behaviour of staff in the organisation', which he said had been 'treated dismissively' at all stages. Mr Kinsley said the investigation was 'biased and prejudged' and the decision to dismiss 'wholly unfair and disproportionate'. Lauren Tennyson, for the company, instructed by Sarah Conroy of Beale & Co, said the employer took the view that the external investigator had made 'extremely serious' findings at the 'higher end' of sexual harassment and that the complainant's behaviour 'warranted dismissal for gross misconduct'. Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision: 'I do not wish to minimise the impact that the incidents had on the two employees,' she wrote. However, she noted that the complainant and Ms B remained friends after the September 2022 incident, while Ms A had stated she had 'just kind of got on with things'. She considered it reasonable that both women would be angry, embarrassed and shocked at the complainant's behaviour, and that it amounted to sexual harassment. However, the conclusion reached by the company investigator that it was a 'high severity of sexual harassment' was 'too extreme' a view, she wrote. She considered it unfair that the employer included the 2022 incident with Ms B's phone in its probe 'to bolster a case for the dismissal of the complainant', having taken no action about it at the time, she wrote. Ms Byrne also found there were 'serious failings' with the process followed by the employer. They 'failed in their duty to properly consider the complainant's defence' – having spent at most 20 minutes considering the worker's position before deciding to dismiss him. Ms Byrne upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded the worker €22,500 in compensation. She wrote that this was 30 per cent of his estimated losses of €73,500, calculated on the basis that the claimant was out of work six months and was now earning €314 a week less than he had with his former employer.
