Latest news with #UnfairDismissalsAct1977
Sunday World
29-05-2025
- Business
- Sunday World
Builder who called his boss a ‘sneaky rat' wins €9k for unfair dismissal
'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday,' so I tipped up the material and went home,' David Donohoe said. A builder fired after calling his employer a 'sneaky rat' in a row on-site has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal. David Donohoe secured the award under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint against SJK Civils Ltd, where he had worked for 13 years until he was sacked in April 2024. Mr Donohoe told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing in January that he was sacked on the spot from the €50,000-a-year job when he got into a dispute with his employer about working hours on Friday, April 5, 2024. The complainant said he had been told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am, and to go to Dublin, collect building materials and bring them to a site. He said that when he arrived with the material, he was told that despite the early start, he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm rather than 1.30pm. Stock image News in 90 Seconds - May 29th He declined to do so, upon which his employer 'started giving out', he said. 'I called him a sneaky rat, that he had it all planned,' Mr Donohoe said in his evidence. 'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday,' so I tipped up the material and went home,' Mr Donohoe said. The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe had only been sent away from the site on April 5, 2024, but was not dismissed from his employment until April 19. He said that after Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he 'was sacked or whatever', he tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a 'capability hearing'. When Mr Donohoe failed to attend, the director wrote to him again and told him his failure to attend the meeting was 'failure to follow a reasonable management instruction' and that his job was being terminated for 'gross misconduct' during the April 5 incident. Mr Donohoe's solicitor, Frank Taaffe, argued the letters sent by the firm to his client were only 'seeking to mend the respondent's hand' by 'retrospectively applying a dismissal process after the fact of dismissal'. Adjudication officer Anne McElduff wrote that both parties 'contributed to the escalation of matters to the point of dismissal' and that it was 'regrettable' there was no attempt to enter into dialogue after that. Ms McElduff's view was that Mr Donohoe should have engaged when there were attempts to launch a formal process. However, she said the company failed to refer him to the correct company policy and set an 'unreasonably short and unfair' deadline to either attend a hearing or have non-attendance be added to the charges against him. The only option for appeal was to the company director, who had been directly involved with the incident of 5 April, she added. 'I consider the respondent has not discharged the burden of demonstrating the Complainant's dismissal was fair, reasonable or proportionate or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures,' she wrote. Mr Donohoe had claimed losses of €15,977 between April and August 2024, at which point he went into business for himself, the adjudicator noted. Ms McElduff decided €9,000 was 'just and equitable in all the circumstances' and directed SJK Civils to pay Mr Donohoe that sum.
RTÉ News
28-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Builder fired after calling his boss a "sneaky rat" to his face
A builder fired after calling his employer a "sneaky rat" in a row on site has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal. David Donohoe secured the award under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint against SJK Civils Ltd, where he had worked for 13 years until he was sacked in April 2024. Mr Donohoe told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing in January that he was sacked on the spot from the €50,000-a-year job when he got into a dispute with his employer about working hours on Friday 5 April 2024. The complainant said he had been told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am, and to go to Dublin, collect building materials and bring them to a site. He said that when he arrived with the material, he was told that despite the early start, he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm rather than 1.30pm. He declined to do so, upon which his employer "started giving out", he said. "I called him a sneaky rat, that he had it all planned," Mr Donohoe said in his evidence. "He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday,' so I tipped up the material and went home," Mr Donohue said. The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe had only been sent away from the site on 5 April 2024 but was not dismissed from his employment until 19 April. He said that after Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he "was sacked or whatever", he tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a "capability hearing". When Mr Donohoe failed to attend, the director wrote to him again and told him his failure to attend the meeting was "failure to follow a reasonable management instruction" and that his job was being terminated for "gross misconduct" during the 5 April incident. Mr Donohoe's solicitor, Frank Taaffe, argued the letters sent by the firm to his client were only "seeking to mend the respondent's hand" by "retrospectively applying a dismissal process after the fact of dismissal". Adjudication officer Anne McElduff wrote that both parties "contributed to the escalation of matters to the point of dismissal" on 5 April and that it was "regrettable" there was no attempt to enter into dialogue after that. Ms McElduff's view was that Mr Donohoe should have engaged when there were attempts to launch a formal process. However, she said the company failed to refer him to the correct company policy and set an "unreasonably short and unfair" deadline to either attend a hearing or have non-attendance be added to the charges against him. The only option for appeal was to the company director, who had been directly involved with the incident of 5 April, she added. "I consider the respondent has not discharged the burden of demonstrating the Complainant's dismissal was fair, reasonable or proportionate or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures," she wrote. Mr Donohue had claimed losses of €15,977 between April and August 2024, at which point he went into business for himself, the adjudicator noted. Ms McElduff decided €9,000 was "just and equitable in all the circumstances" and directed SJK Civils to pay Mr Donohoe that sum.
RTÉ News
26-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
eBay worker loses constructive dismissal claim
An eBay customer support agent who quit after being written up for failing to explain four minutes of inactivity on his computer to his manager's satisfaction has lost his claim for constructive dismissal. The employee told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) earlier this year he had "people dying left, right and centre" in his personal life at the time of the events that led to the warning, including a friend who "went into the river in Navan". His former manager said: "Anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance." A claim for constructive dismissal brought by the worker, Eanna Donoghue, under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 eBay Europe Services Ltd, has been rejected by the tribunal. Mr Donoghue quit on 5 March 2024, the day he was told a company appeals officer had decided to leave a written warning for "work avoidance" on his personnel file – effectively barring him from seeking promotion for a time, he said. He had been in the €41,000-a-year job for just short of seven years. The tribunal heard Mr Donoghue's former line manager, Niamh Seoighe, wrote to him on Thursday 21 December 2024 telling him that she had observed on a screen recording that he closed off a customer issue by email in a minute and 36 seconds, but left the page open for a few minutes. "I couldn't take it any longer," Mr Donoghue said, telling the WRC the reprimand for "work avoidance" followed a period when he had "people dying left, right and centre" in his personal life, including a friend who "went into the river in Navan". "For some reason that was just ignored. A perfect record for seven years, and she [his line manager] still thought it was reasonable and fair to give me a warning on that incident," he said. Mr Donoghue's position was that the reprimand over the four-minute inactivity incident in January 2024, and informal "verbal counselling" on 28 November 2023 for lateness, was linked to filing grievances, starting with complaints against two operations managers on 16 November that year. He said he was aggrieved to get "a warning for going to the bathroom for four minutes, for not closing off an email" when he claimed he had called out people "doing ten times worse" in the past. Mr Donoghue had "informal verbal counselling" for lateness in the months before the downtime issue arose, the tribunal heard. Three instances of lateness were officially recorded on Mr Donoghue's file. The company submitted he had actually arrived late on eight occasions. The tribunal heard that Mr Donoghue had car trouble at the time and was trying to get from Navan, Co Meath, to Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, by bus. He told the WRC the Minister for Transport had admitted to a newspaper "the NX [bus] didn't turn up". "That was out of my control, I couldn't get to work," he said. Mr Donaghue's position during a disciplinary meeting had been that he "forgot to close the email" before taking a break, and that he might have gone to get a cup of tea," counsel for the respondent Mark Curran BL said in cross-examination. "To this day I'm not sure," Mr Donaghue said. "I took a couple of calls in this time," he said. "You did say you took a personal call about the person in the river," he said. "I took a personal call, but I'm not sure if it was in that four minutes," the complainant said. Ms Seoighe said in her evidence that she wrote to Mr Donoghue before Christmas that year looking for an explanation after observing on a screen recording from his computer that he had finished responding to the email but failed to mark himself as available for up to five minutes. "It was call avoidance," she said. "If I'm going on the 'break unpaid' ops code, I'm being skipped; it's going to someone else on the team, they're getting additional calls," she said. "[For] idle time on an email, anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance," she said. Her position was that the issue was exacerbated by Mr Donoghue's failure to use an hour specifically allotted for him to answer her queries on the downtime and because she "had to follow up several times". The written warning given to Mr Donoghue by Ms Seoighe was upheld in a paper-based appeal. In her decision, adjudicator Eileen Campbell wrote that she had "every sympathy" for the difficulties Mr Donoghue had experienced in his personal life. She wrote that Mr Donoghue "appears to feel that he has been treated unfairly by the imposition of a first written warning for behaviour of a type he would have called out in respect of agents in the past". "When his team leader does her job and addresses an issue with the complainant he considers it to be unreasonable behaviour and alleges he is being targeted," she wrote. She noted further that Mr Donoghue quit "without any attempt at raising a grievance" about the warning. "I am not persuaded by the complainant that resignation was his only option," she concluded, dismissing the complaint.
Irish Independent
26-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Independent
Ebay worker who quit after failing to explain four minutes of inactivity on computer to manager's satisfaction loses WRC claim
The employee told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) earlier this year that he had 'people dying left, right and centre' in his personal life at the time of the events that led to the warning, including a friend who 'went into the river in Navan'. His former manager said: 'Anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance.' A claim for constructive dismissal brought by the worker, Eanna Donoghue, under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against eBay Europe Services Ltd, has been rejected by the tribunal. Mr Donoghue quit on March 5 last year, the day he was told a company appeals officer had decided to leave a written warning for 'work avoidance' on his personnel file – effectively barring him from seeking promotion for a time, he said. He had been in the €41,000-a-year job for just short of seven years. I couldn't take it any longer The tribunal heard Mr Donoghue's former line manager, Niamh Seoighe, wrote to him on Thursday, December 21, 2024 telling him that she had observed on a screen recording that he closed off a customer issue by email in a minute and 36 seconds, but left the page open for a few minutes. 'I couldn't take it any longer,' Mr Donoghue said, telling the WRC the reprimand for 'work avoidance' followed a period when he had 'people dying left, right and centre' in his personal life. 'For some reason that was just ignored. A perfect record for seven years, and she [his line manager] still thought it was reasonable and fair to give me a warning on that incident,' he said. Mr Donoghue's position was that the reprimand over the four-minute inactivity incident in January 2024, and informal 'verbal counselling' on November 28, 2023 for lateness, was linked to filing grievances, starting with complaints against two operations managers on November 16 that year. He said he was aggrieved to get 'a warning for going to the bathroom for four minutes, for not closing off an email' when he claimed he had called out people 'doing 10 times worse' in the past. ADVERTISEMENT Learn more Mr Donoghue had 'informal verbal counselling' for lateness in the months before the downtime issue arose, the tribunal heard. Three instances of lateness were officially recorded on Mr Donoghue's file. The company submitted he had actually arrived late on eight occasions. The tribunal heard that Mr Donoghue had car trouble at the time and was trying to get from Navan, Co Meath, to Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, by bus. He told the WRC the Transport Minister had admitted to a newspaper: 'The NX [bus] didn't turn up.' 'That was out of my control, I couldn't get to work,' he said. Mr Donoghue's position during a disciplinary meeting had been that he 'forgot to close the email' before taking a break, and that he might have 'gone to get a cup of tea,' counsel for the respondent Mark Curran BL said in cross-examination. 'To this day I'm not sure,' Mr Donaghue said. 'I took a couple of calls in this time.' 'You did say you took a personal call about the person in the river,' Mr Curran said. 'I took a personal call, but I'm not sure if it was in that four minutes,' the complainant said. Ms Seoighe said in her evidence that she wrote to Mr Donoghue before Christmas that year looking for an explanation after observing on a screen recording from his computer that he had finished responding to the email but failed to mark himself as available for up to five minutes. 'It was call avoidance,' she said. 'If I'm going on the 'break unpaid' ops code, I'm being skipped; it's going to someone else on the team, they're getting additional calls,' she said. '[For] idle time on an email, anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance.' Her position was that the issue was exacerbated by Mr Donoghue's failure to use an hour specifically allotted for him to answer her queries on the downtime and because she 'had to follow up several times'. The written warning given to Mr Donoghue by Ms Seoighe was upheld in a paper-based appeal. In her decision, adjudicator Eileen Campbell wrote that she had 'every sympathy' for the difficulties Mr Donoghue had experienced in his personal life. She wrote that Mr Donoghue 'appears to feel that he has been treated unfairly by the imposition of a first written warning for behaviour of a type he would have called out in respect of agents in the past'. 'When his team leader does her job and addresses an issue with the complainant he considers it to be unreasonable behaviour and alleges he is being targeted,' she wrote. She noted further that Mr Donoghue quit 'without any attempt at raising a grievance' about the warning. 'I am not persuaded by the complainant that resignation was his only option,' she said, dismissing the complaint.
RTÉ News
20-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
WRC told firm shouldn't be held liable for losses of "vet on the dole" after sacking
The chief executive of a veterinary business has told a tribunal that he has "never heard of a veterinary surgeon on the dole", with lawyers arguing that the firm's unfairly dismissed former clinical director was choosing new jobs that suited her desire to work and give childcare to her daughter. "I'm not choosing, that's my family," the complainant Annie Baltz said in reply. The company's position is that Ms Baltz failed to mitigate her losses when she was left out of work and is not entitled to pursue the company for them. The tribunal heard Ms Baltz, a qualified vet with 12 years' experience, was sacked without notice in March 2024 by CVS (Ireland) Veterinary Service No. 2 Ltd after a company investigation found against her on a bullying complaint. The company conceded that the dismissal was procedurally flawed last year following Ms Baltz'somplaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The firm has since changed its registered name to GVE Vets (Ireland) No. 2 Ltd, the tribunal heard. The tribunal heard evidence yesterday on Ms Baltz' losses, and her efforts to secure alternative employment after losing her €103,000-a-year job overseeing two practices in the Leinster area and a night vet service. Ms Baltz' barrister, Hugh O'Flaherty BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Glenn Cooper, said the background to the dismissal was a previous complaint against his client in early 2023 that led to an internal investigation commencing in March that year into the procurement of a fire alarm system. Ms Baltz said she had been served with a written warning for that matter as a disciplinary sanction in July that year. A further allegation about the procurement of furnishings had been dropped from the probe when she pointed out it had been "ithin my budget to decide that" she added. "I believe the fire alarm, the Ikea situation, was an attempt to get me out of the company… so I made a complaint for bullying and harassment," the complainant said. She added that she had to take a fortnight off work due to stress around this time. When two fellow employees made complaints against Ms Baltz on 11 September 2023, she was suspended two days later, Mr O'Flaherty submitted. Mr O'Flaherty put it to her that the company investigation concluded that there was "no harassment, but they do find bullying". "Yes, correct," Ms Baltz said. The complainant was dismissed with immediate effect on 13 March 2024 and was out of work until she took up new employment on 1 July that year, the tribunal heard. In the meantime, she exercised her right to appeal the dismissal, which was rejected by her former employer, and applied for a number of vacancies. The list of job titles in the applications disclosed to the hearing included a position as veterinary business manager with a pharmaceutical group, assistant professorship at a veterinary school, a technical consultant at pharmaceutical firm specialising in animal medicines and a veterinary care director. Ms Baltz said she pursued roles she believed would give her "the same flexibility" to work from home and attend to childcare which she had in the clinical director role she lost, and ultimately took up a post as operations director at a veterinary group. Questioned on why she had not sought new work as a veterinary surgeon, the complainant said she had a daughter to collect at 3.30pm each afternoon. She added that she did not expect to be ready to resume a full-time clinical role as a veterinary surgeon until her younger son had enters secondary school in 12 years' time. Counsel for the respondent Mary-Paula Guinness BL, put it to her that she was "choosing jobs that suit the fact that you want to work and give chlidcare to your daughter". "I'm not choosing, that's my family," Ms Baltz said. GVE Vets chief executive James Cahill in evidence said that he believed Ms Baltz "applied for a range of jobs for which she was completely unqualified" in the period of her unemployment. "I believe if she'd presented that CV as a highly qualified, experienced veterinary surgeon, she would have got a job as a veterinary surgeon very, very quickly," he said, adding that the complainant could also have "mitigated her losses with locum work". "I have never heard - and I qualified in 1989 - I have never heard of a veterinary surgeon on the dole," Mr Cahill said. Mr Cahill was asked by Mr O'Flaherty whether Ms Baltz might have hoped to return to her position when she appealed her dismissal to his firm. Mr Cahill said: "She may have been hopeful but… there were a whole series of grievances raised by Ms Baltz against pretty much anybody who had anything to do with her." He said six individuals and the company were currently subject to "a High Court case of some shape or form". Adjudication officer Louise Boyle heard closing submissions from the parties before closing the hearing, with her decision to issue in writing in due course.
