Latest news with #DaveMeehan
The Irish Sun
3 days ago
- General
- The Irish Sun
Irish players urged to check Daily Million Plus tickets as life-changing €500k win remains unclaimed
IRISH punters are being urged to check their tickets as a massive Lotto win remains unclaimed. Bosses at 3 Tesco Stillorgan Team Leader Arbaaz Khalfe and Customer Assistant puzzled over the unclaimed €500k Daily Million Plus ticket sold in-store Credit: Dave Meehan, Maxwell Photography 3 The winning Quick Pick ticket was bought at Tesco in the Stillorgan Shopping Centre on the day of the draw Credit: Dave Meehan, Maxwell Photography One player managed to bag a huge The winning ticket is held by someone in the Stillorgan area of South The winning Quick Pick ticket was bought at The winning Daily Million Plus numbers from that draw were: 17, 22, 23, 25, 30, 37. READ MORE IN MONEY The bonus number pulled was 32. Store Manager, Errol Flynn, said: "It's incredibly exciting to know that one of our customers could be sitting on a €500,000 ticket. "We'd love to see the prize claimed in time, so we're reminding everyone to double-check their tickets from late March. Most read in Money "It would be fantastic to see it go to someone local!" All winners have 90 days to claim their prize from the date of the draw. Penneys 'Lotto Lovelies' collect huge cheque at National Lottery HQ This means that the National Lottery spokesperson Emma Monaghan is urging all Daily Million Plus players in Dublin to carefully check their old tickets from late March to make sure they don't miss out on the substantial prize. She said: 'We're eager to hear from the Daily Million Plus player who purchased their ticket in Stillorgan and is now sitting on a €500,000 prize. "With the deadline fast approaching on Thursday, 26th June, we're encouraging everyone in the area to check any old tickets they might have tucked away. "You never know - your winning ticket could be sitting in a drawer or jacket pocket right now.' If you're holding the winning ticket, you are advised to sign the back of it and keep it somewhere safe. You should contact the National Lottery prize claims team as soon as possible on 1800 666 222 or email Arrangements will then be made for you to collect your prize at Lottery HQ. 3 The National Lottery is urging players to check tickets from the 2pm draw on Friday, March 28 before the prize deadline on June 26 Credit: Dave Meehan, Maxwell Photography
Irish Times
22-05-2025
- Irish Times
Spilt Milk employee says she suffered months of sexual harassment
An ex-employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk has told a tribunal that she quit after suffering months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, who she said questioned her about her sexual experience, pestered her for dates, and told her: 'You really need to stop saying no to me'. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was told that within a month of starting work together, the older man had told her they had 'sexual chemistry', asked her out, and told her that he 'thought that sex with me would be electric'. The claimant, Leni Shanahan, said a key factor that prompted her to quit was when she found out that her boss, company director and health food entrepreneur Dave Meehan, had, while talking to another employee, referred to her alleged harasser making a remark about becoming 'physically aroused' by the complainant's 'flirting'. 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 on Drury Street in Dublin 2. READ MORE Her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998, alleges her former employer, LN Ice Cream Ltd, trading as Spilt Milk, is liable for discrimination by way of sexual harassment. The company denies liability. Its representative told the tribunal the alleged harasser had denied any impropriety, and no longer works for the business or lives in Ireland. Representing herself before the WRC on Tuesday, Ms Shanahan said that she primarily had contact with Mr A, her alleged harasser, a colleague 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, 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. 'Stop saying no' 'During early July, he insisted I go on a date with him to a museum. After I refused, he insisted. After I brought up his partner, his girlfriend, he still insisted,' she said. By mid-July, she had asked for a roster change to avoid Mr A, but did not explain her reasoning to the member of management responsible for scheduling, the tribunal heard. During a shift midway through the month, she said, Mr A was going out to a supermarket to buy ingredients and asked her if she 'needed anything'. 'I said: 'No thank you. He replied to me: 'You really need to stop saying no to me.' The way it was delivered was not playful, it was not joking, it had intent,' Ms Shanahan said. On another shift later that month, Mr A 'came upstairs looking for a coffee and, while I was making his coffee, in Spanish, he said: 'Don't look at me like that. Don't look at me with those eyes''. 'I hadn't even looked at him, because I was busy making coffee. I asked: 'What?' she said. She said his next words were: 'You know what that does to me,' before he winked and walked away. 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. She said she could see 'confusion' in the face of another worker who witnessed this exchange who 'heard the tone of that comment' and 'how uncomfortable and embarrassed I was'. The tribunal heard Ms Shanahan did not return to work as planned and resigned on 10 September that year – before writing to her employer complaining of sexual harassment and then filing her WRC complaint. 'Physically aroused' 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 about becoming 'physically aroused' by her 'flirting' months earlier to Mr Meehan, which she said Mr Meehan went on to refer to in September 2024 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. Her earlier evidence had been that what she heard about that conversation while she was away on leave 'confirmed to me that if I returned to Roots that I would not be protected or safe'. Mr Meehan said it had been a 'passing remark' by the alleged harasser in April or May that year. He told the hearing what he repeated in the later conversation to Mr B was that Mr A had told him Ms Shanahan and Mr B were 'flirting' and 'nearly short of making [Mr A] sexually aroused, physically aroused'. Mr Meehan said he thought nothing of the original remark by the alleged harasser and that 'frustration and emotions' got the better of him in the September conversation with Mr B. Mr Meehan said that since her complaint, he had taken training in human resources. 'It's my first time having a shop in the city centre with such responsibility. I'd like to think for the most part I've led with love and care, and 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. Fiona O'Connor, the company's representative before the WRC, said its position was that this aspect of Ms Shanahan's complaint was dealt with separately by way of an apology to Ms Shanahan. The complainant confirmed to the tribunal that she was not alleging sexual harassment on the part of Mr Meehan personally. A company investigation did not uphold any of the complaints she made about Mr A, the tribunal was told. Ms Shanahan said she did not complain before quitting because she had 'no idea' there was a complaints process for harassment, as she was 'never shown a policy'. Ms O'Connor had told the WRC earlier that while the company's management believed Ms Shanahan had signed copies of the relevant policies, it had been unable to locate the documents after an office refit. 'Feeling of fear' Steven Murphy, another director of the firm, told the WRC he conducted a company investigation into Ms Shanahan's complaint following her resignation, for which Ms Shanahan had declined to be interviewed, he said. Mr Murphy said there was 'no factual evidence we could find to uphold the complaint' and that Mr A 'refuted' her allegations. 'It was a tough situation, something I've never done before. Leni said one thing, [Mr A] said the other,' he said. Ms O'Connor said the company 'acted promptly and with care, carried out an investigation and offered support services' to Ms Shanahan after she wrote in with her complaint. 'These are not the actions of an indifferent or negligent employer. Our position is that the respondent took all steps reasonably practicable for it to take,' she said. She added that if the WRC did find the company in breach, liability ought to be capped at €13,000 on the basis that Ms Shanahan had left the employment by the time she brought her case to the WRC. Ms Shanahan said she had proven that she was sexually harassed at work and consequently discriminated against. She said that no policy for the prevention of sexual harassment was ever communicated to her, nor any training on the subject given during her employment, and that she never signed any contract referring to such a policy. 'As a result, I did not feel like I could make a complaint,' she said. Closing the hearing, adjudication officer Pat Brady thanked the parties, said he would reflect on the evidence and submissions, and proceed to issue his decision in due course.
