Nearly €35,000 owed to staff left ‘in the lurch' by Shanahan's on the Green closure
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has heard multiple statutory complaints from former employees of its operator, JMS International Holdings, since the closure of the prominent restaurant and has made awards to six workers to date.
There had been a promise to staff that Shanahan's would get back in business and pay what it owed to the workers, a waiter told the tribunal last month. 'These plans never came to fruition,' he said.
In each case, the workers – who include chefs, front-of-house staff and the company's long-standing book-keeper – have told the employment tribunal the company failed to pay them any wages for their last week at work.
READ MORE
Six workers, each with more than a decade's service, gave evidence to WRC adjudication officers that they received no notice of termination in circumstances where they were entitled to six to eight weeks each.
Waiting staff said that as well as being denied their last week's wages and other statutory entitlements, they were also left without their tips when the restaurant closed.
[
Dublin steakhouse Shanahan's on the Green closed until further notice due to financial challenges
Opens in new window
]
The tribunal heard that when tips and service charges were accounted for, some senior waiters at Shanahans were making €1,000 a week or more while working full-time hours.
'It was left to the manager to inform us what was happening, he didn't tell us anything. The company shut down; I was left a week without pay – there was also unpaid tips and service charges,' waiter David Byrne told the WRC last month.
Mr Byrne, who had only started four weeks before the closure, said Shanahan's 'shut down quite quickly'.
'We were told the Sunday night, and from there, it was just shut down. We were emailed, we were told everything would be sorted out, that he had plans to open up again and get everyone paid. These plans never came to fruition.'
How the wealthy are buying up land to avoid inheritance tax
Listen |
22:03
Mr Byrne was due no statutory redundancy or notice pay due to his short service, but said he had not been paid for three shifts in his last week in the employment.
Adjudication officer Conor Stokes found the restaurant's management breached the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by failing to pay Mr Byrne the €360 he was owed for working three dinner shifts.
Mr Stokes also found Mr Byrne's split of the service charges for that week, €74.80, along with €47.63 in tips, was not paid out in a further breach of the Payment of Wages Act on the part of the restaurant. The total awarded to Mr Byrne was €684.93.
The restaurant was coming up on its 25th anniversary when staff were informed that it had ceased trading. Five workers have secured orders for statutory notice on the basis of working there over a decade.
Waiter Luke Carragher was awarded €3,300 for unpaid wages and holiday pay. Paul Harte, another waiter, an employee of Shanahan's since 2006, won €9,855, comprising a week's gross pay and eight weeks' notice.
Assistant manager Angelo Lamberti, who was earning €1,200 a week, including tips and gratuities, won €5,280 for unpaid notice pay, wages and holiday entitlements. Chef Piotr Fraszczyk won €5,950 and book-keeper Kathleen Friel won €9,855 on the same basis.
The total awards made against JMS International Holdings by the WRC to date now stand at €34,992.93.
The restaurant's management has not attended any of the cases decided by the WRC to date.
One of the longest-serving staff was chef Gheorge Danescu, whose case was also heard last month. WRC adjudicator Penelope McGrath told him: 'I have met a number of your colleagues at this stage. You were all let go without any explanation in October of last year. It was a difficult situation, undoubtedly.'
'Nineteen years,' Mr Danescu said, adding: 'They've been like a family.'
'I can see from the tone of the emails he [the owner] sent that he had a good rapport with his staff, but he did leave you in the lurch,' Ms McGrath said.
She noted that there was an email from the owner 'stating that Revenue had frozen the bank accounts and he was going to go back to the States and attempt to raise funds'.
'You were given no notice, because that was effectively your last day of work,' she added.
The WRC's decision on Mr Danescu's complaints has yet to be published. The chef's wife asked Ms McGrath at the hearing: 'Who's going to pay the money?'
Ms McGrath said: 'Some money can be claimed through the social insurance fund. You need to talk to your colleagues; I can't give you legal advice [but] it's not without hope.'
'It won't be from the respondent. The status of the respondent would be known to the [Department of Social Protection],' she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘The stress is inhumane': Second Dublin council pauses scheme to buy homes of tenants at risk of homelessness
The number of families at risk of homelessness due to the lack of funding for the tenant-in-situ scheme has risen to more than 160, after a second local authority in Dublin paused applications. The scheme allows local authorities to buy properties that host tenants facing eviction because the landlord is selling. It applies to tenants who have received a notice of termination, are deemed at risk of homelessness and who qualify for social housing support such as the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) or the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS). New restrictions were applied to the scheme this year, including a stipulation that the home must be in the HAP or RAS system for at least two years. READ MORE There have also been lengthy delays in the issuing of Government funding to the scheme, as Minister for Housing James Browne conducted a review of its terms. In June, Dublin City Council confirmed it had paused all new applications to the scheme as its 2025 budget had already been allocated. The council had 104 applications to the scheme by March. Fingal County Council has now confirmed it is in the same position and will not be proceeding with any more purchases under the scheme. In a letter sent to Sinn Féin TD for Fingal West Louise O'Reilly, the local authority said its budget for 2025 'has been exhausted' after it made 32 acquisitions under tenant in situ, with one remaining sale going through the conveyancing process. This compares to 121 tenant-in-situ acquisitions made in 2024. 'There were 60 tenant-in-situ applications that were paused at the beginning of the year and did not proceed due to limited funding,' the council said. [ More than 100 families in Dublin at risk of homelessness as tenant-in-situ applications paused Opens in new window ] One of those applications was by a woman and her young child who are living in rental accommodation in Balbriggan. Ms O'Reilly said the woman's child was due to start school in the area in September but now they are at risk of homelessness. The woman received a notice to quit in August 2024 and applied for the tenant-in-situ scheme in March. Ms O'Reilly said the woman understood she was accepted for the scheme until she learned last month about the council pausing applications. 'The stress she is under is inhumane. She has also lost valuable time that she could have been searching for somewhere to live while believing that the tenant-in-situ purchase was ongoing,' Ms O'Reilly said of her constituent. 'The Government has now literally removed the only homeless prevention measure that my constituents had. It is beyond heartbreaking to see the human impact of this decision on families and especially on children,' she said.
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Does it make sense to hold onto my husband's bank shares and his stockbroker account?
I know that you have done your best to try to explain the misery that befell many of us when the banks were taken over by the Government. But some of us are remedial and still don't quite understand where we now stand. My late husband worked in AIB and had his life's savings in AIB shares. (For safety he diversified into equally 'safe' BOI shares!). I recall that, before the crash, his AIB shares were worth about €450,000. They were held with Goodbody's . I don't know why. My December 2024 statement states that, as of now, I have close to €25,000 invested roughly evenly across the two big banks. READ MORE Last month, I paid an annual charge of €701,61 to Goodbody's (Cumulative Effect of Costs and Charges on Returns), of which €501,61 was in non-Goodbody charges My questions are as follows: Should I close this account with Goodbodys since I have never done – and don't plan to do – any trading. Is there any point in hanging on to these shares in the hope that, when the banks are making millions again, they might feel sorry for those of us who lost everything and offer some kind of compensation? In fairness, AIB continues to pay my widow's pension. Ms J.R. The first rule in making sense of investments is understanding what you are paying for the opportunity of gain. Charges can fundamentally affect your return so it is important to get a proper fix on them. I get the sense you're not too sure why you are paying the amount you are paying Goodbody's to manage this portfolio of shares and cash. I've spoken to Goodbodys who, no more than their rivals, can be difficult o tie down on the question of fees. To their credit, they have suggested you contact them directly so that they can walk you through exactly what the charges are and for what service. As usual, I have not given any of your identifying details to them as I did not have your explicit permission to do so but they tell me they have offered an experienced person on standby to deal with you directly on this matter. I'll pass those details on to you. Charges aside, there are a couple of big issues here. First, should you hold on to the shares and second, should you continue to hold an account with Goodbody's or any other broker? Let's take those in reverse order. You have kind of answered the second question with your assertion that since your husband died and you inherited these shares, you have never done – and do not plan to do – any trading. There is no obligation to hold your shares through a broker although you will need to engage a broker should you ever decide to sell them. These days, shares are 'dematerialised'. This means that any paper share certificates you hold – which used to be the legal proof of ownership – are now worthless. Instead, details of your shareholdings are held in electronic form by the 'registrar', the company that manages the list of shareholders for each of these banks. In this case, a company called Computershare is share registrar for both banks. You can keep track of your shares and any dealings in them by registering with Computershare here for access to their online investor centre. You'll need very basic details – your unique shareholder reference number for each shareholding – which you should be able to find on communications from the companies, or from Goodbody. The key thing here is that you do not need to hold your shares through a stockbroker and, if you are not trading in shares, it makes little sense to be paying annual charges for the privilege – never mind over €700. Based on the current value of your account, as outlined in your query, the Goodbody's annual charge amounts to over 2.75 per cent, which certainly strikes me as very high, especially for an account with no activity. I cannot think of an explanation Goodbody's could provide that would make this a sensible proposition for you. Unless you plan to sell the shares now given you already appear to be paying Goodbody for the service, I would pull the plug on the Goodbody account and keep track of the shares through the Computershare Investor Centre. If you do want to sell later, you can always 'shop the market' to see who will sell them for you at the lowest charge. That brings us to the other issue – should you hold on to these shares at all? As an AIB lifer, it is not entirely surprising – if not exactly sensible – that he invested heavily n the bank's shares. Back then, he may have been able to do so at preferential rates or through some employee share programme. He was correct that it made sense to diversify given the concentration of his investment. I have no idea if he took advice at that time but the notion of diversifying from having all your investments in one bank stock by investing in the State other large listed back was mad even back then. All his eggs were still in the banking basket and we all know what happened there. People like your husband saw their savings effectively go up in smoke. In AIB's case, quite apart from the bank bailout that saw the value of his shareholding crash, he also went through the one for 250 share consolidation in 2015 that knocked a further 75 per cent of the value of his savings. In the case of Bank of Ireland, in 2017, it gave shareholder one new share for every 30 previously held but, of course, it too saw the value of existing investors' shareholdings decimated by the post-crash bailout. Given the number of shares your husband, and now you, hold in both banks, it is clear his investment in both was significant. You do not say when you inherited these shares which is a key point. Any investment gains (or in his case losses) die with a shareholder. So when you inherited the shares, their base value will be whatever they were worth at that time. The losses your husband suffered are, unfortunately, irrelevant. Assuming you inherited some time since late 2010, you are actually in profit on both those shares right now – albeit a long way of recovering the sort of level they traded at when your husband had them before the crash. So if you do sell, and assuming your gain is more than €1,270, as I assume it will be, you will be paying capital gains tax at 33 per cent on those 'profits'. I'm not a share analyst, nor a qualified financial adviser, so I cannot say what you might expect these shares to do in the future, though it is fair to say that most analysts see some upside for both as the State has now exited their bailout investment despite cuts in European Central Bank interest rates that have padded their profits in recent years. The bigger question is whether you are comfortable with stock market investments in individual shares. Even if you are, it would be advisable to consider proper diversification – something you might discuss with Goodbody when you meet them and before you make any decision to close that account. Whatever you do, I would certainly not bank of either lender offering any compensation to the shareholders it gutted during the crash, now that they are back to earning millions of euro. They may say how sorry they are for what happened – and have done – but they're not that sorry. And, to be fair to them, that is the nature of stock market investment. It carries risk – hence the good sense in diversification – and when things go wrong, shareholders will find themselves at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to people being taken care of. That is the reality of shareholder investment. Investing in Ireland's banks used to be considered almost as good as investing in government bonds, with dividend income as icing on the cake. The crash reminded us not to take such things for granted. And much and all as investors must take responsibility for their own risk, I would not be giving AIB any credit for paying your widow's pension. That is part of the Ts & Cs of your husband's occupational pension scheme - not some munificence on the part of the bank. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Don't believe the myth: Britain's services industry has been hit hard by Brexit
One by one the supposed pillars of the economic argument for Brexit have been knocked away by the realities. Far from being shackled to a corpse, as some Brexiteers described the European Union economy, both the euro zone and the EU have grown faster than the UK since the 2016 referendum. Britain's goods exports have slumped compared with the rest of the G7. 'Look at services,' Brexiteers cry. Their export growth has been exceptional, according to Policy Exchange, the right-of-centre think-tank. The Office for Budget Responsibility also noted a year ago that UK services trade growth had been the strongest in the G7. Should the UK be happy that its trade in services has performed well? Was this the result of Brexit? The short answers are 'no' and 'no'. Instead it should be annoyed that services exports did not grow even more, and blame Brexit for this disappointment, according to new research from the London School of Economics. READ MORE Before explaining the findings, it is important to note that although the UK economy has many weaknesses, services are a strength. While television crews will always want to picture industries such as manufacturing or fishing to visually describe what makes a country wealthy, this is not relevant to 80 per cent of Britain's economic activity. The UK's success lies in its lawyers, information providers, creative types, management consultants and educators. A handful of universities generate more export income than the entire fishing industry, for example. [ Post-Brexit export drive hampered by UK trade finance regulations, ICC warns Opens in new window ] Unusually for any economy, UK services exports exceed those of goods and not by a trivial amount – almost 40 per cent higher in 2024, with the gap widening. The OBR noticed, however, that not all of the UK's services exports appeared equally strong. Business services including management consultancy and research and advertising – where Brexit barriers were small or nonexistent – were growing strongly. Other services did not perform nearly as well, including finance and transport, where the barriers erected by leaving the single market were significant. But the fiscal watchdog left its analysis hanging. The Juggle: the issues facing women with young children when balancing childcare and their careers Listen | 44:30 Picking up the baton has been left to LSE team economists Shania Bhalotia, Swati Dhingra and Danyal Arnold. Using data that allowed comparison of the growth in services trade across different sectors and between a large number of pairs of countries, they examined how strong UK services exports were in each sector compared with all other countries. They also meticulously examined the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement to document which services exports into the EU faced new barriers after the post-Brexit deal came into effect in 2021. The results are stark. The OBR was right to note that UK services exports facing new Brexit barriers appeared to perform worse. UK exports to countries with greater barriers were hit much harder. Where the most extreme barriers were introduced, services exports fell 90 per cent. [ Brexit was 'single stupidest thing a country's ever done' Opens in new window ] On average there was a 16 per cent drop in services exports to the EU in sectors where Brexit imposed new trade frictions compared with bilateral trade between other countries in the same sectors. Did Brexit allow British companies to focus on trade with the US and other countries? Again, the answer was 'no'. Overall, the research found that UK services exports five years after Brexit were 4-5 per cent lower than they would have been without the effect of new trade frictions. In a nation that struggles to accept its relative economic decline since Brexit, the UK has been far too quick to celebrate the better performance of services. Instead of showing that Brexit might have some benefits, it simply shows that the UK had specialised in the right industries at the right time, allowing many world-class companies to sell globally. Rather than generate 'global Britain', leaving the EU has had one simple effect: economic harm. Without Brexit, they would have done even better. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
