Builder awarded €9,000 for unfair dismissal after calling employer a ‘sneaky rat'
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 April 5th last year.
He said he was told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am. He was told to go to Dublin to collect building materials and bring them to a site, he said.
READ MORE
When he arrived with the material, he said, he was told he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm, despite the early start.
He declined to do so, after 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 Donohoe said.
The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe was sent away from the site on April 5th, 2024, but was not dismissed from his employment until April 19th.
The director said Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he 'was sacked or whatever'. The director then tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a 'capability hearing'.
When Mr Donohoe did not show, 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 April 5th 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 April 5th 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 April 5th incident, she added.
The respondent company did not discharge the burden of demonstrating Mr Donohoe's dismissal was 'fair, reasonable or proportionate, or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures", she wrote.
Mr Donohoe 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'. She 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
14 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
Irish Times
14 minutes ago
- Irish Times
In Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael faithful think they've found their first president
A successful 2025 presidential election campaign is likely to demand a candidate who can command support within party politics but still foster an identity that exists outside of it. A cascade of nominations for Heather Humphreys from the majority of the Fine Gael parliamentary party started rolling in on Tuesday as soon as she announced her intention to run. But the most vital endorsements came days ago from Independent politicians Michael Healy-Rae, Seán Canney and Noel Grealish. This attracted significant attention in Fine Gael, which knows very few of its party members would be able to attract such support. This is why the current tally at the time of writing of more than 30 endorsements for Humphreys and fewer than 10 for Seán Kelly does a disservice to the MEP and former GAA chief. The Munster vote-getter is well respected within his party, and it wasn't without some anguish that some of his party colleagues declared for Humphreys instead. But the momentum was going one way. The buoyant mood in Fine Gael this week is that of a party that thinks it's found its first ever president of Ireland. Fine Gael was planning to formally launch Mairead McGuinness's campaign in the days before the National Ploughing Championships in Tullamore, which will kick off in the third week of September. The campaign launch date will be kept the same for the new Fine Gael candidate – in all likelihood Humphreys – which the party is presenting as proof that it hasn't lost any time. The time that elapsed between McGuinness dropping out and the party finding two new candidates was so brief, Tánaiste Simon Harris never once found himself in front of a microphone having to account for what his party's plan was now. READ MORE Though the nomination process will technically continue for another week, Fine Gael is already actively planning how its campaign could be altered to suit Humphreys. Some elements of the McGuinness campaign can be transferred to Humphreys who, like the former MEP, shares a penchant for an agricultural show. But under Humphreys, the campaign would shift more towards the themes of community and a shared island. Think Tidy Towns and tolerance. [ Heather Humphreys and Seán Kelly presidential face-off expected as Fine Gael reopens nominations Opens in new window ] Fine Gael is expecting opposition to a Humphreys campaign to try to tie her to Government failings in housing and health over her 10 years at the cabinet table. This was borne out in a press release from Sinn Féin on Tuesday evening, which said 'Heather Humphreys will have to account for 14 years of Fine Gael failure'. Humphreys will face tough questions on aspects of her government record, including her role as director of elections for the failed 2024 referendums, a Green Paper on disability reform that was so controversial it had to be withdrawn, and her reported opposition to an increase in jobseeker's allowance. But Fine Gael figures are confident that Humphreys' time as a minister was 'very impactful but not that controversial' given she never held a portfolio such as health or housing. If its candidate is Humphreys, Fine Gael has enough humility to know that her strength will be that she doesn't seem all that Fine Gael. There used to be a running joke at cabinet that the former minister got on better with Fianna Fáil than she did with her own party colleagues. The reason Humphreys attracted so much support within Fine Gael's parliamentary party is because politicians recognised her ability to attract support from all kinds of people outside it. For example, earlier this year she sat down for a podcast interview with former president Mary McAleese and broadcaster Mary Kennedy. As Humphreys was talking about how much she likes playing the piano, McAleese pointedly interrupted her: 'There's a great Steinway in the Áras.'
Irish Times
14 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Unite dispute with Jones Engineering goes to mediation
A dispute between Unite and builder Jones Engineering sparked by legal action against three of the union's members will go to mediation after the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 's (OECD) intervention. HA O'Neill, part of the Jones group, recently dropped High Court action against Unite and three shop stewards following a one-day strike in March 2023 over travel allowances. Both sides accepted an offer of mediation on Tuesday from the OECD, which got involved after Unite and the Builders and Woodworkers International (BWI) filed a complaint with it against Jones and its US owner Cathexis. The OECD's national contact point for the Republic, part of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, ruled that the issues raised required further consideration. READ MORE Unite general secretary Sharon Graham dubbed the decision a 'vindication' of its members in Jones, adding that it sent a clear signal to other employers. The union and BWI claimed the company breached the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Ethical Business Conduct by taking action against the shop stewards. Jones said on Tuesday that it rejected the union's allegations and added that the OECD had not found that the company had 'acted inconsistently with the guidelines'. 'Facilitated mediation does not imply wrongdoing, but rather that all parties wish a resolution to the matter,' Jones Engineering added. Failure to comply with OECD guidelines can affect companies bidding for state or publicly funded contracts in member countries. Along with dropping the court action, which the company has done, Unite wants Jones to compensate its three shop stewards and to enter a facilities agreement with the union, meant to allow greater co-operation between the pair. Unite also seeks the restoration of the travel allowance, which originally prompted the dispute. The union and the Mechanical Engineering and Building Services Contractors' Association, of which Jones is a member, have taken this issue to the Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court in a bid to resolve it across the industry. Unite members held a one-day strike on March 10th, 2023, at Jones Engineering's sites in Pfizer in Grange Castle, Dublin, and Intel in Leixlip, Co Kildare. They were demanding the restoration of a travel allowance to building workers of one hour's pay, which the industry had dropped with unions' agreement following the financial crash in 2008. HA O'Neill sought a High Court injunction restraining Unite and the shop stewards from engaging in further industrial action pending a final hearing of the dispute. The company maintained that the industrial action was unlawful and that there was no valid dispute between it and Unite. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the High Court was wrong to grant the injunction as Unite had followed procedures laid down in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. However, HA O'Neill subsequently took a separate High Court action against the union and its officials, which it halted in June this year. In their complaint to the OECD, Unite and BWI claimed that the court proceedings were meant to financially punish the three shop stewards. However, the company has always rejected that it acted improperly. Jones said it continued to recognise all unions and to operate within frameworks that have guided industrial relations in its industry for decades.
