Shop cleared of discrimination over €68 payment in coins
The children's father filed a complaint accusing the accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on 22 December 2023 because they were members of the Traveller Community.
The claim was ruled "not well founded" by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published today (FRI), which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors.
The tribunal heard that at around 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier had scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for the girl and boy, whose father was outside the premises in a car.
The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. "[It] took some time to count," she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month.
When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with "a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside", she told the WRC.
The cashier then asked the children whether they had "anything larger to pay with". She explained that there was "a large queue building up" at her till.
The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him "very confrontational".
She told the WRC she "made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money" and had only asked for notes because it was "a very busy day". There were "a lot more than 50 coins involved".
The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her that he had banknotes, but told her he "wished to pay in full using coins".
The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said.
The father of the children replied: "You are refusing to accept our payment."
She said she was "trying to find a solution" and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change – but the father of the children "turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation".
The children's father gave evidence that they told him at the car that they "were not being served" and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he "supported what [his wife] had said about the event" in presenting the claim.
The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
"The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident".
The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the "misunderstanding" in a bid to de-escalate the situation as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused.
Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published today that it was "not prejudicial" for the cashier to ask the children if they had "larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases".
He noted that by law, "no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction".
He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was "hearsay".
The cashier's evidence that she "never refused to complete the purchase" but simply asked the children whether there was "a more convenient way to pay", he wrote.
"The request to pay with larger value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day," he wrote.
He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she "did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct", and dismissed the complaint.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
30 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Founder of breast cancer clothing firm wins €85k after salary stopped
The founder of a clothing line for breast cancer patients has won nearly €85,000 after a tribunal ruled she was constructively dismissed by having her salary stopped last year. Ciara Donlan secured the sum after pursuing a series of employment rights complaints against Theya Healthcare Ltd, a brand she established a decade ago, following what she termed an 'aggressive takeover' in 2023. The company was not represented when the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard her complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in June this year. Ms Donlan, representing herself before the employment tribunal, said the company had been profitable when a liquidation was triggered by 'an aggressive takeover attempt by two angel investors' in January 2023. READ MORE She said that key assets of the brand were bought by members of a family involved in manufacturing medical garments in China, the Gallaghers, who offered her a job as CEO with a 40 per cent shareholding in a new entity, Theya Healthcare Ltd. The €110,000-a-year pay deal she had was altered to €90,000 in salary plus €20,000 in expenses paid 'off the books', she said. The remaining 60 per cent of the business was to be held by Anne Sweeney, the wife of businessman Joseph Gallagher, she said. Ms Donlan said that when she looked for a contract for the CEO role, Mr Gallagher 'dismissed the need for one'. She said that despite assurances from the Gallagher family that production of Theya's product line at their factories in China would be a priority, there were 'persistent delays' which hit customer relations and 'disrupted the sales pipeline'. She said her efforts to co-ordinate manufacturing through the family 'proved unreliable', with her queries 'often met with vague or evasive responses'. 'These difficulties made effective management of the business nearly impossible,' Ms Donlon said. The adjudicator, Breiffni O'Neill, noted Ms Donlan's evidence that 'tensions' worsened in early September 2024 when Ms Donlon's monthly expenses were not paid. Ms Donlon's case was that the company's financial director informed her this was because she had been 'instructed not to release the payment' by the respondent. The complainant said she considered quitting at that stage, but stayed on 'out of loyalty to the customer base' and other commitments. Ms Donlan's evidence was that having been left short by €2,500 in August, she was told around September 20th 2024 that she would not be receiving her scheduled salary payment on September 26th. Mr O'Neill noted in his decision that the evidence before him was that there had been an instruction given not to pay Ms Donlan her salary due in September 2024 while the company 'continued to pay other staff'. There was 'no lawful justification or mutual agreement' to hold back or suspend her pay, he wrote, calling this 'a fundamental repudiation of the contract by the respondent'. He concluded on this basis that Ms Donlan was constructively dismissed and awarded her nine months' pay for her losses, a sum of €67,500. He directed the payment of a further €10,000 to Ms Donlon for her unpaid salary under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Mr O'Neill also awarded the complainant €6,923, a sum of one month's wages, as compensation for the failure to provide Ms Donlan with a contract of employment in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1991. He noted that he was giving the 'maximum allowable award' for this breach, as he considered the 'complete failure to issue a statement of terms and conditions of employment' to be 'more serious' than providing an incomplete or incorrect one. The total awarded to Ms Donlan in the case was €84,423.
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Founder of breast cancer clothing firm wins €85k after salary stopped
The founder of a clothing line for breast cancer patients has won nearly €85,000 after a tribunal ruled she was constructively dismissed by having her salary stopped last year. Ciara Donlan secured the sum after pursuing a series of employment rights complaints against Theya Healthcare Ltd, a brand she established a decade ago, following what she termed an "aggressive takeover" in 2023. The company was not represented when the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard her complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in June this year. Ms Donlan, representing herself before the employment tribunal, said the company had been profitable when a liquidation was triggered by "an aggressive takeover attempt by two angel investors" in January 2023. She said that key assets of the brand were bought by members of a family involved in manufacturing medical garments in China, the Gallaghers, who offered her a job as CEO with a 40% shareholding in a new entity, Theya Healthcare Ltd. The €110,000-a-year pay deal she had was altered to €90,000 in salary plus €20,000 in expenses paid "off the books", she said. The remaining 60% was to be held by Anne Sweeney, the wife of businessman Joseph Gallagher, she said. Ms Donlan said that when she looked for a contract for the CEO role, Mr Gallagher "dismissed the need for one". She said that despite assurances from the Gallagher family that production of Theya's product line at their factories in China would be a priority, there were "persistent delays" which hit customer relations and "disrupted the sales pipeline". She said her efforts to coordinate manufacturing through the family "proved unreliable", with her queries "often met with vague or evasive responses". "These difficulties made effective management of the business nearly impossible," Ms Donlon said. The adjudicator, Breiffni O'Neill, noted Ms Donlan's evidence that "tensions" worsened in early September 2024 when Ms Donlon's monthly expenses were not paid. Ms Donlon's case was that the company's financial director informed her this was because she had been "instructed not to release the payment" by the respondent. The complainant said she considered quitting at that stage, but stayed on "out of loyalty to the customer base" and other commitments. Ms Donlan's evidence was that having been left short by €2,500 in August, she was told around 20 September 2024 that she would not be receiving her scheduled salary payment on 26 September. Mr O'Neill noted in his decision that the evidence before him was that there had been an instruction given not to pay Ms Donlan her salary due in September 2024 while the company "continued to pay other staff". There was "no lawful justification or mutual agreement" to hold back or suspend her pay, he wrote, calling this "a fundamental repudiation of the contract by the respondent". He concluded on this basis that Ms Donlan was constructively dismissed and awarded her nine months' pay for her losses, a sum of €67,500. He directed the payment of a further €10,000 to Ms Donlon for her unpaid salary under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Mr O'Neill also awarded the complainant €6,923, a sum of one month's wages, as compensation for the failure to provide Ms Donlan with a contract of employment in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1991. He noted that he was giving the "maximum allowable award" for this breach, as he considered the "complete failure to issue a statement of terms and conditions of employment" to be "more serious" than providing an incomplete or incorrect one. The total awarded to Ms Donlan in the case was €84,423.
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- RTÉ News
Man called 'dog' by boss awarded €8,000 in unpaid wages at WRC
A worker who said his ex-boss slashed his rostered hours down to just one day a week and got "abusive" with him at a meeting has won nearly €8,000 in unpaid wages and compensation. Craig O'Brien told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that businessman Zemari Jalilzad "berated" him in front of multiple colleagues at a meeting last September when he objected to the cut in hours, telling him: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The company then failed to send him his wages for the month of September on payday the following week, he said The employment tribunal has found Mr Jalilzad's wholesaling company, Jalilzad Electronics Ltd, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 on foot of complaints by Mr O'Brien, in a decision published today. After nobody representing the company dialled in for scheduled hearings by videoconference in May and July this year, the WRC heard the complaints in the absence of the respondent. Mr O'Brien, who was represented by David Lane of McGroddy Brennan Solicitors in the case, had "many years' experience in the retail and wholesale trade", in particular with household products, toys and seasonal stock, the tribunal noted. The complainant told the tribunal he met Mr Jalilzad when the businessman came to buy up stock during the liquidation of his former employer. Mr Jalilzad had asked him at that stage to join him in establishing his business, he said. Employer 'upset' and 'losing faith' He prepared sales forecasts and a business plan, which Mr Jalilzad agreed to finance, he said. He then travelled to China on behalf of Mr Jalilzad to visit manufacturers of Halloween-related products with a view to supplying these to the Irish retail trade, he said. In May 2024, he joined the company as general manager, on a salary of €50,000 per annum, he said. He proceeded to set up a showroom in Dundalk for retailers to see stock, hired a website administrator, prepared a list of suppliers, and managed to pre-sell stock worth €150,000 to shops, he said. Mr O'Brien said it became clear that "things wouldn't work out" as Mr Jalilzad "insisted" on using a different supplier and "refused to budge" on this. The complainant said the said the product range, price and quality from this supplier "wasn't what customers wanted" and "not what he built the [sales] forecast around". However, Mr Jalilzad "refused to pay deposits to the factories" and the stock Mr O'Brien had pre-sold was never delivered, leaving him to explain matters to the customers, the complainant said. Mr O'Brien said his employer was "upset" about the failing sales figures and customers were "losing faith". He was "constantly on the road trying to fix problems" in July and August 2024 arising from "communications issues with order picking", he said. He told the tribunal he wrote to his employer outlining the problems with the business on 15 September last year, also expressing concerns about the company's finances. The complainant alleged that when he raised a concern on 25 September that the website administrator hadn't been paid, Mr Jalilzad "shouted abuse" at him over the phone. 'You are nothing, you are a dog' On 30 September, Mr O'Brien said he met with the website administrator, Mr Jalilzad, an associate named Imam Jalil, and the businessman's brother in an attempt to "resolve" matters. He said there was a "cool start" to the meeting before Mr Jalilzad "became abusive" and told him that with immediate effect he was "only required to work one day a week". Mr O'Brien said he challenged Mr Jalilzad's right to change his terms of employment "without discussion", upon which Mr Jalilzad "berated" him and said: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The businessman sent him a letter later that day cutting his working week from five days to one day a week as a "temporary change". Mr O'Brien's payslip for September arrived on 1 October, recording gross wages of €4,166.66, but "no money was transferred", Mr O'Brien told the WRC. When he wrote looking for the wages, Mr Jalil replied by email stating: "Please let us know if you are available to work one day a week," the tribunal was told. Mr O'Brien said he heard nothing from the firm about what duties he was to perform. Wages 'unlawfully deducted' Mr O'Brien said his employment ended on 31 October when it "became clear" the managing director wasn't going to pay his wages or have "any contact" with him. In her decision, adjudicator Catherine Byrne said it was "entirely unacceptable" that the company had failed to consult Mr O'Brien about the cut to his hours and decided on it without his agreement, the company was not in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in that regard. She also found there was "no requirement" for pay in lieu of notice in circumstances where the complainant – who had just six months' service at the time - considered himself to have been "constructively dismissed" due to his employer's conduct. However, Ms Byrne ruled that the company was nevertheless liable for Mr O'Brien's wages for both September and October 2024, and ordered it to pay him €3,078.86 in tax-free compensation for both months, based on the net value of his full-time wages for the period. The wages had been "unlawfully deducted" in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, she ruled. She also found Mr O'Brien had been deprived of eight days' accrued annual leave in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, awarding him a further €1,731.60 in compensation.
