Builder fired after calling his boss a "sneaky rat" to his face
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Ice cream parlour worker pestered for dates by colleague gets €5,000 for sexual harassment
A former employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk, who said she quit after months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, has secured €5,000 in compensation. Leni Shanahan was awarded the compensation on foot of her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against LN Ice Cream Ltd, the operator of the shop on Drury Street in Dublin 2. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard that Ms Shanahan was a 21-year-old student at Trinity College Dublin when she was among the first five workers hired for the opening of the shop in March 2024, under the joint branding of Spilt Milk and Roots Acai. She told a hearing in May that, within a month of starting work together, an older colleague told her they had 'sexual chemistry', asked her out and remarked that he 'thought that sex with me would be electric'. Representing herself before the WRC, Ms Shanahan said she primarily had contact with Mr A, her alleged harasser, who was aged in his early 30s, when they were rostered to work together in the shop's basement production kitchen, where there was no CCTV. In the first week of April 2024, she said Mr A asked her to 'go out with him for a drink' in the course of what she called a 'very inappropriate conversation'. The following week, Mr A 'initiated a conversation about sexual experiences with her'. 'He stated that we had sexual chemistry and he thought that sex with me would be electric,' Ms Shanahan said. In late May of that year, Mr A 'made comments about my physical appearance and commented on my white skin, my light eyes, my hair, my lips and my body, my weight and what I wore – and continued the conversation like that, after I expressed discomfort', she said, before outlining a further series of interactions in the same vein. On her last shift before leaving to take holidays in August 2024, she said Mr A gave her a hug and asked her when she was due back, before telling her: 'I hope next time I see you, you won't be here,' before winking at her. The tribunal heard Ms Shanahan did not return to work as planned and resigned on September 10th that year before writing to her employer complaining of sexual harassment and then filing her WRC complaint. Ms Shanahan said a key factor in her decision to quit and pursue a claim at the WRC was hearing that her alleged harasser had made a remark to her boss, health food entrepreneur Dave Meehan, about becoming 'physically aroused' by her 'flirting'. She said she was told while she was away on leave that Mr Meehan had brought up the remark while talking to another employee, Mr B. 'As it was relayed to me, a comment was made [by Mr Meehan] about how [Mr A] would 'get hard' in conversations with me,' Ms Shanahan said, as she cross-examined her former employer. Mr Meehan said in evidence that, since Ms Shanahan's complaint, he had taken training in human resources. 'It's my first time having a shop in the city centre with such responsibility,' he said. 'I'd like to think for the most part I've led with love and care. I've made mistakes along the way like any other human being. Now I'm better equipped to deal with situations like this. That's all I can say – again, I've apologised, and I really do mean it,' he said. Ms Shanahan said she had 'no idea' there was a complaints process for harassment, as she was 'never shown' any policy document in that regard. She confirmed that she was not alleging sexual harassment on the part of Mr Meehan personally. Steven Murphy, another company director, said Ms Shanahan declined to be interviewed for his internal investigation. 'It was a tough situation, something I've never done before. Leni said one thing, [Mr A] said the other,' he said. There was 'no factual evidence we could find to uphold the complaint', he said, and Mr A had 'refuted' her allegations. In his decision, adjudicator Pat Brady wrote that the business could not rely on the statutory defence of having taken 'reasonable and practical steps' to prevent sexual harassment because there were 'no measures of any sort' in place. He wrote that Mr Murphy's investigation finding that Ms Shanahan's complaints did not meet the criteria of sexual harassment were 'only true if no weight is attached to [her] statements… or less weight than is attached to an alleged perpetrator's denial'. Mr Brady said it was 'unhelpful' that Ms Shanahan had declined to participate in the company probe and 'difficult to understand' why she had not complained sooner. 'These factors provide no comfort to the respondent, whose liability is not diminished, but I propose to take them into account in making my award of compensation,' he added. Upholding the claim, he awarded the worker €5,000.
Irish Examiner
3 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Labour Court to hear X appeal of payout for unfair dismissal to former Irish executive
The main Irish unit of Elon Musk's X will commence its appeal at the Labour Court on Tuesday against a ruling that it must pay out an Irish record unfair dismissal award of €550,131 to a former executive. In the ruling last August, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator, Michael MacNamee found that Twitter International UC - since renamed X Internet Unlimited Company - unfairly dismissed the company's former Director Source to Pay, Gary Rooney in December 2022 after he failed to respond to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email. Mr Rooney has yet to receive any of the monies as the case is before the Labour Court on appeal from Twitter International UC. The published Labour Court diary confirms that the Labour Court has set aside hearing days for Tuesday and Wednesday of this week at the Labour Court's Dublin HQ for the appeal. Solicitor for Mr Rooney, Barry Kenny of Kenny Sullivan Solicitors in Bray declined to comment on Monday ahead of the appeal. However, commenting last month on the impending Labour Court hearing, Mr Kenny said: 'My client is anxious to put all this all behind him.' He said last month: 'The WRC determined that X's treatment of him as a long standing and loyal employee amounted to an unfair dismissal. Mr Rooney is anxious that the Labour Court will affirm this decision.' Mr Kenny said: 'It is open to the Labour Court to increase or reduce sums awarded in the WRC as it will be a De Novo hearing.' He said last month that X had advised that they intend to call at least three witnesses while Mr Rooney is the only witness in his own case. At the WRC, Twitter International UC fully contested Mr Rooney's claim, over five days of hearing, contending that he had resigned voluntarily. In his findings, Mr MacNamee found that Mr Rooney was dismissed because he did not click 'yes' to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email on November 16, 2022 and for that reason alone. On November 16, 2022, Mr Rooney and the Twitter workforce received an email from the world's richest man, Mr Musk who said: 'To build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing a grade." Mr Musk said: 'If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below.' After Mr Rooney opted not to click 'yes' on the link, three days later on November 19, 2022, Mr Rooney received a further company email which stated that it is 'to acknowledge your decision to resign and accept the voluntary separation offer'. On receiving Mr Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email, Mr Rooney said his first reaction was disbelief and he was initially afraid even to open it for fear that it was spam or malware. The record €550,131 award was made up of Mr Rooney's remuneration losses of €350,131 from January 2023 to May 2024 and estimated future remuneration losses of €200,000. The remuneration losses were based on Mr Rooney's Twitter remuneration of €323,560 made up of €151,225 in pay and €172,335 in deferred cash consideration. Mr Rooney secured a new role with an employer in the banking sector in September 2023 on total remuneration of €129,897.
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Irish Independent
School denies attempting to mislead WRC using ‘false' versions of a guidance counsellor's contract
Today at 06:44 Lawyers acting for a Dublin school say it and its principal 'absolutely deny' a claim that it has attempted to 'mislead' the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) by handing in 'false' versions of a guidance counsellor's employment contracts. The allegation was made during a preliminary hearing on Friday into a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 by Mary Lynch (56) against secondary school St Dominic's College on the Navan Road in Dublin 7.
