Latest news with #Keelings
Irish Times
5 days ago
- Business
- 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.
RTÉ News
07-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Keelings fails in bid to have alleged whistleblower penalisation claim heard in private
The Keelings fruit and vegetable group has failed in an attempt to have allegations of whistleblower penalisation and multiple employment rights breaches by a former employee heard entirely behind closed doors. At the Workplace Relations Commission today, an adjudicator told the firm's representatives that the prospect of "certain people being named" in connection with the case was not reason enough to justify hearing the matter out of the public eye. Keelings Logistics Solutions had sought a private hearing into claims by the worker, former warehouseman Rudolph Csikos, which were called on today at the employment tribunal. He has alleged breaches of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 against the company. At the hearing, adjudicator Brian Dalton noted the application by the company's representative, Emily Maverley of the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (Ibec), for a hearing "in private". "That's quite unusual, because this case is about the administration of justice," he said. "I do have the power to have a hearing in private, but I have to have very good reasons for it," he said. "Certain wrongs, certain people being named - that in itself is not a reason," he added. "In the administration of justice, the whole process is tested, and ultimately I will make a ruling. You can't make an allegation of defamation in the administration of justice. It's up to me to decide," he said. He added that the law required "exceptional" circumstances for a private hearing. Mr Dalton said he was only aware of the basis for the application for a private hearing at a "high level" and said there was "no point" discussing the detail any further with a member of the press in the room. "I'm going to ask the press to leave temporarily," he said. The matter proceeded for around 25 minutes behind closed doors before Mr Dalton reopened the hearing to the public. "An application was made for the hearing to be heard in private, and it was turned down," he said. After a short adjournment, Mr Dalton quoted a section of the Workplace Relations Act, as amended, to the parties. He said the legislation required a hearing "in public, unless the adjudicating officer… determines that due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings or part thereof should be conducted otherwise than in public". "In other words, most of this case will be heard in public," Mr Dalton said. The adjudicator gave 27 May as the date for a further hearing and adjourned the matter shortly after that.
Irish Times
07-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Keelings fruit company fails in bid for private hearing of whistleblower allegations
The Keelings fruit and vegetable group has failed in an attempt to have allegations of whistleblower penalisation and multiple employment rights breaches by a former employee heard entirely behind closed doors. At the Workplace Relations Commission on Wednesday an adjudicator told the firm's representatives that the prospect of 'certain people being named' in connection with the case was not reason enough to justify hearing the matter out of the public eye. Keelings Logistics Solutions had sought a private hearing into claims by the worker, former warehouseman Rudolph Csikos, which were called on Wednesday at the employment tribunal. He has alleged breaches of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 against the company. READ MORE At the hearing, adjudicator Brian Dalton noted the application by the company's representative, Emily Maverley of the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (Ibec), for a hearing 'in private'. 'That's quite unusual, because this case is about the administration of justice,' he said. 'I do have the power to have a hearing in private, but I have to have very good reasons for it,' he said. 'Certain wrongs, certain people being named – that in itself is not a reason,' he added. 'In the administration of justice, the whole process is tested, and ultimately I will make a ruling. You can't make an allegation of defamation in the administration of justice. It's up to me to decide,' he said. He added that the law required 'exceptional' circumstances for a private hearing. Mr Dalton said he was only aware of the basis for the application for a private hearing at a 'high level' and said there was 'no point' discussing the detail any further with a member of the press in the room. 'I'm going to ask the press to leave temporarily,' he said. The matter proceeded for around 25 minutes behind closed doors before Mr Dalton reopened the hearing to the public. 'An application was made for the hearing to be heard in private, and it was turned down,' he said. After a short adjournment, Mr Dalton quoted a section of the Workplace Relations Act, as amended, to the parties. He said the legislation required a hearing 'in public, unless the adjudicating officer… determines that due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings or part thereof should be conducted otherwise than in public'. 'In other words, most of this case will be heard in public,' Mr Dalton said. The adjudicator gave May 27th as the date for a further hearing and adjourned the matter shortly after that.
