logo
Worker who bullied gay colleague awarded €3k over "procedural failure"

Worker who bullied gay colleague awarded €3k over "procedural failure"

RTÉ News​09-05-2025

A hotel night manager sacked for bullying a gay colleague has won €3,000 for unfair dismissal because his employer missed an email from him attempting to appeal his firing.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found the hotel operator, Cantarini Limited "acted reasonably" by sacking the worker, Omar Mohammed Osman – but breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when it missed his email asking to exercise his right of appeal, and failed to respond.
Mr Osman, who was a night manager at the City Quay aparthotel in Dublin City Centre, was sacked on foot of findings that he was bullying a gay colleague, Mr D, because of his sexuality.
However, Mr Osman argued that he was accused of homophobia in a "thinly veiled attempt to penalise him" for raising concerns about how he was being treated by managers.
Mr D had complained that Mr Osman called him "a big homosexual" and "princess", the WRC noted. Mr D further alleged that Mr Osman called him by a nickname that "sounded like he was being referred to as an animal" – as well as whistling at him and mocking his accent.
Mr Osman's evidence to the WRC was that he has "no issue with homosexuals" and is "not homophobic", the adjudicator hearing the case noted.
He stated that he couldn't have whistled at his former colleague, because he did not "know how to whistle". He also told the tribunal that when he used the word "princess", he had been referring to a female colleague, the decision recorded.
His position was that none of the allegations made against him by Mr D were true.
The tribunal was told that prior to Mr D's complaint, Mr Osman had received a written warning by his manager for "letting the team down" by leaving work around 30 minutes into a shift in December 2023.
However, Mr Osman complained to the company that his line manager and other staff had been "in the back office when they should have been working" and that the manager was "shouting and cursing" at him, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Osman emailed the company's HR manager complaining of "bullying" from a night duty team leader, Mr L, on 14 March 2024, two days before he was interviewed for the first time in connection with the harassment complaint against him.
He formalised the grievance later in the month, before being interviewed again in connection with the dignity at work investigation.
Five days later, the disciplinary process concluded with findings that Mr Osman had been "bullying and harassing a colleague in relation to their sexual orientation and race", and the complainant was dismissed.
After the matter was heard by the WRC in January, Mr Osman's legal team furnished the WRC with an email he had sent asking to appeal the dismissal.
The respondent's head of human resources, Victoria Scrase, told the WRC there was no response because the person Mr Osman had written to had themselves left the company four days after Mr Osman's sacking.
Mr Osman's position was that it was "unfair to investigate a complaint made about him when he had been complaining for six months about how he was treated and nothing had been done".
His barrister, Joseph Bradley BL, appearing instructed by Melissa Wynne of Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that his client had been subjected to "aggressive and violent outbursts at work" and had been met with a "dismissive" stance when he first complained in October 2023.
"He was accused of homophobia, in a thinly veiled attempt to penalise him for raising concerns about how he was treated by managers," Mr Bradley submitted.
Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision that even at hearing before the WRC, Mr Osman seemed to be "unaffected by the possibility that he offended his colleague". She did not accept his explanation for his use of the word "princess", she wrote.
"A simple acknowledgement of the effect that his behaviour had on his colleague may have made a difference and could have avoided his dismissal," Ms Byrne added.
She said she could see no alternative except to find the company was "reasonable" to dismiss Mr Osman, a worker she wrote was "unable to see the effect of his behaviour… and apologise for the distress he had caused".
"It is very regrettable that he didn't seek some wise counsel before he engaged in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his dismissal," she added.
However, she concluded that because the company did not respond to an email from Mr Osman seeking to exercise his right of appeal, the dismissal was unfair because of this "procedural failure".
Ms Byrne rejected further claims of penalisation in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by Mr Osman.
Mr Osman's position was that he was only accused of homophobia and subjected to disciplinary action as a reaction to complaining about Mr L.
Ms Byrne concluded that that Mr Osman had played a part in the conflict among staff and that his grievances were addressed by management. He "was attempting to distract attention" from Mr D's complaint against him when he raised his grievances in March 2024, she added.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Baker who alleged he was subjected to racial slur in Polish wins €4,000
Baker who alleged he was subjected to racial slur in Polish wins €4,000

Irish Times

time20 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Baker who alleged he was subjected to racial slur in Polish wins €4,000

A baker has won €4,000 over being subjected to a racial slur in Polish by a colleague nearly six years ago. The award was made in a set of rulings published on Monday regarding a workplace dispute that arose in the spring of 2019. The worker, a black French man, alleged he was being bullied by predominantly Polish colleagues at an unidentified food and drinks company 'because he does not speak Polish'. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) rejected various complaints of his alleging discrimination in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on the grounds of race and disability. However, it found against the employer in respect of the racial slur incident in June 2019. READ MORE The worker gave evidence at a series of adjudication hearings, saying he 'felt threatened and isolated at work' during a period in early 2019 and felt he was suffering discrimination because he was 'black and did not speak Polish'. The worker said 'nothing was done' after he complained to his bosses in February 2019. The company's position was that it facilitated the worker by changing the start time of his shift and later changing his work location. It had also ordered his Polish colleagues to translate all work-related conversations to English, the tribunal was told. The complainant's further evidence was that after his transfer to the new work location he was subject to 'a particularly offensive and derogatory racial slur which was conveyed to him in Polish' on June 23rd, 2019. The worker who made the remark – which was not recorded in the tribunal's published decisions – left the employment the following day. The worker told the tribunal he 'did not know what it meant' until it was explained to him by a third party some months later, after which he filed his second complaint with the WRC. A head chef who gave evidence on behalf of the employer said 'nobody was subject to racial abuse' and that the workplace has 'zero tolerance' for bullying and harassment. The employer's position was that the complainant 'did not react well' when performance issues were raised with him. 'His response was to claim that he was being discriminated against and racially abused,' the company's representative submitted, adding that the firm had 'gone to great lengths' to support him. Adjudicator Andrew Heavey noted the accusation was 'vehemently denied' in the company's investigation process. However, he accepted the sworn evidence of the worker on the balance of probabilities. He wrote that despite the 'bona fides' and 'significant efforts' made by the employer to support the worker and address his complaints, it was still vicariously liable for the actions of its staff. He found the complainant was 'harassed on the race ground' on or about June 23rd, 2019, and directed the company to pay €4,000 in compensation for the discrimination. He rejected all other claims by the worker under the Employment Equality Act. Mr Heavey anonymised his decisions on the basis 'information of a sensitive nature relating to the complainant', which he believes 'deserves privacy'. He noted that when he held his final hearing into the claims last November, the complainant remained an employee of the firm and there had been 'no further issues'.

Keelings worker fired over claims regarding dead co-workers
Keelings worker fired over claims regarding dead co-workers

Irish Times

time5 days ago

  • Irish Times

Keelings worker fired over claims regarding dead co-workers

The Keelings fruit and vegetable group sacked a warehouse worker after deciding he had brought the company into disrepute with 'false' posts on social media claiming excessive night work hours contributed to the deaths of two of his colleagues in 2013, a tribunal has heard. The worker, Rudolf Csikos, lost his job of 16 years with the north Co Dublin produce firm last December, and is pursuing a number of employment rights complaints against Keelings Logistics Solutions. The company maintains it was justified in dismissing him on the grounds of gross misconduct after an investigation which concluded he had 'acted recklessly by publishing false and misleading information' implying that Keelings was 'responsible for the deaths of two colleagues as a result of excessive working hours'. The LinkedIn posts were made amid a long-running legal row between Mr Csikos and his employer over alleged breaches of working time legislation. READ MORE A statutory complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act originally filed in late 2019 by Mr Csikos remains live over five years later. Having been rejected as 'vexatious' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), that ruling was quashed by the Labour Court on appeal and referred back to the WRC. In addition to a dispute over the payment of a Sunday premium, which Keelings maintains is covered by a collective agreement, Mr Csikos has alleged the company failed to comply with its legal obligations on the employment of night workers such as himself. 'The night working hours was breached by the company, and that's why it caused the people to die,' Mr Csikos said via a Hungarian-language interpreter at an initial hearing last week. When adjudicator Brian Dalton pointed out that Mr Csikos was not medically qualified and there was no medical evidence before him, Mr Csikos said his assertion was that there was a 'possibility'. The company's representative, Emily Maverley of the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (Ibec), said the Keelings workers referred to by Mr Csikos in his posts 'passed away, unfortunately, in 2013', some 11 years before the posts. Giving evidence last week, company disciplinary officer Alan Morrissey said the posts were 'damaging to the Keelings name, and our customers and other stakeholders'. 'There was no going back. I asked Rudolf did he think he made a mistake. He was quite happy in what he said and did,' he said. Asked whether he was aware of the allegations Mr Csikos had aired about his working hours, Mr Morrissey said he didn't 'get into it', but said he believed Mr Csikos had referred to the posts as a protected disclosure. Lauren O'Brien, head of people for Keelings Logistics, said at an earlier hearing in the case last week that she was 'concerned' after seeing the first post, which the tribunal heard Mr Csikos posted on LinkedIn at the end of October 2024. 'It was seriously defamatory to several ex-colleagues, accusing us of being responsible for the deaths of two colleagues,' Ms O'Brien said. At a hearing on Thursday, the company investigation officer, Damien O'Brien, noted in his report that Mr Csikos continued to allege Keelings had broken the law and maintained his comments 'were not false' when they met on an unspecified date last year. He quoted Mr Csikos as saying: 'How many more people need to die?' and said Mr Csikos was 'consistent that his beliefs are honestly held' and that it was 'not the first time he has raised these concerns'. Mr Csikos, cross-examining Mr O'Brien, asked: 'Why did he not say that Keelings is keeping according to the law and is making progress to keep the law and do things according to the regulations?' Mr O'Brien replied: 'My objective was to investigate the two posts.' Mr Dalton said: '[Mr Csikos] is claiming two workers died. That's not something [the witness] could exercise any role in.' Mr Csikos said: 'In my opinion, it was that if the working hours are breached and the health and safety regulations are breached, we can draw a conclusion.' 'We have no conclusion on that, and that doesn't follow, because [Mr Csikos] is not medically qualified. We have no evidence that there's a correlation between the [alleged] breach and what he says has happened. He may speculate, and he may have an opinion. He cannot use this forum as an opportunity to make outlandish allegations,' Mr Dalton said. Mr Dalton said the matter was at an 'impasse' without further submissions being made to him about the company's working time records. He adjourned the matter and said he would seek a further hearing date in July. In addition to the original Organisation of Working Time Act claim, Mr Csikos's further complaints are under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 against the company, arising from his dismissal.

Chef whose colleague thrust into him ‘as if he was riding a horse' and let out a ‘yee-haw' loses discrimination claim against Dublin nightclub
Chef whose colleague thrust into him ‘as if he was riding a horse' and let out a ‘yee-haw' loses discrimination claim against Dublin nightclub

Irish Independent

time7 days ago

  • Irish Independent

Chef whose colleague thrust into him ‘as if he was riding a horse' and let out a ‘yee-haw' loses discrimination claim against Dublin nightclub

While the tribunal accepted Mr Aksakal was subjected to 'unedifying' behaviour with 'undeniable sexual overtones', it found the Odeon took the incident 'very seriously' A chef has failed to have a Dublin nightclub held liable for the conduct of a colleague who thrust into him with his genital area 'as if he was riding a horse' and let out 'a loud 'yee-haw'' in an incident with 'undeniable sexual overtones' last year. Rejecting the worker's discrimination claim under the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found the Odeon Bar and Restaurant on Harcourt Street in Dublin 2, operated by Kivaway 2 Ltd, was not a workplace where sexual harassment was tolerated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store