Latest news with #unfairdismissal
Irish Times
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Nail bar worker wins €1,000 for unfair dismissal
A nail technician let go just a month after starting work has won €1,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal after her employer fell foul of an anti-victimisation clause in the National Minimum Wage Act. Sole trader Colm Tyrell, operator of a beauty salon Love Your Nails, was directed to pay €1,000 to the worker, Odonchimeg Genenbat, for what a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator called a 'very arbitrary dismissal without any proper procedures' last Christmas. Ms Genenbat, a nail technician earning €260 for a 20-hour week, told a workplace rights hearing in May this year that she was hired on 26 November 2024, and was informed by text message on 27 December that her job had been 'terminated'. Giving evidence through an interpreter, she explained that she was furnished with neither any standard employment documentation nor any payslips when she started work. She said 'all was well' until she asked for payslips on 14 December to find out her rate of pay. READ MORE Having taken holidays on Christmas Eve, she was told she was out of a job three days later without any of the normal procedures, interviews or appeals required in a dismissal taking place, she told the tribunal. Ms Genenbet, who worked at the salon just over a month, argued she fell under an exception to the usual minimum requirement of 12 months' continuous service to be shielded by the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. She cited Section 36 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, stating that her request for her payslips on 14 December put her in the category of a worker who had sought information about her wages and been refused. Adjudicator Michael McEntee recorded that her employer, Mr Tyrell, had failed to show up to the hearing on 23 May this year. He noted an email from the employer stating that the failure to give Ms Genenbat her payslips was an 'administrative error'. The employer wrote that he came to the 'difficult decision not to continue her employment' because of alleged 'work performance' issues. These claimed issues were the 'inability to complete customer treatments in the time allocated' and 'customer satisfaction issues', Mr Tyrell wrote. In his decision, Mr McEntee noted that the fact of dismissal was not in dispute and ruled that Ms Genembat was entitled to pursue her complaint despite her short service. 'Either by accident or design, the complainant was able to utilise a mechanism to have her case heard under the Unfair Dismissals Act. Accordingly, the absence of normal procedures makes the dismissal unfair, and redress has to be awarded,' he added. He awarded €1,000 in compensation, noting Ms Genenbat's short period in employment and 'modest' wages. Mr McEntee wrote that the employer had taken a 'somewhat cavalier approach' by failing to attend the hearing and said this was a factor in his decision. Mr Tyrell is the first employer in over two and a half years to lose an Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 claim relying on the extension of the law to a worker who has sought a statement of pay under Section 36 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Health
- Telegraph
Lewd secret Santa gift left abattoir worker in tears
A health and safety manager at an abattoir has sued his workplace for sexual harassment over a secret Santa gift. Barry Cochrane was reduced to tears and felt he had no option but to resign after his colleague was given a mug that revealed a crude message about 'teabagging' when filled with hot liquid. Mr Cochrane had not been at the meeting when the presents were exchanged, but took offence when he felt jokes were made at his expense when 'sexual content' was being discussed. After being added to a work group chat, he scrolled up to find a colleague had said she was 'thankful' he had not seen the mug. Mr Cochrane said he felt 'humiliated' and tried to sue his employer for unfair dismissal and sexual harassment. A judge dismissed his claims in their entirety, finding Mr Cochrane's reaction to be 'disproportionate' and ' confected with litigation in mind '. The tribunal, held in Aberdeen, was told Mr Cochrane started working for Neerock, a Morrisons-owned meat-processing company, as a health and safety specialist on Dec 11 2023. Mr Cochrane was initially invited to the meeting where gifts were exchanged on Dec 12, but his invitation had been withdrawn because of a delay in his start date. 'Singled out' David Orton, a senior health and safety manager at Morrisons, received the gift and 'suspected that there may be something on the mug which might not be appropriate to show in a work meeting'. Mr Orton unwrapped the gift at home to find a blank mug which, when filled with hot fluid, revealed a picture of a pair of testicles wrapped in a bow-tie with the phrase 'I love teabagging' underneath. He took a picture of the mug and sent it to a team group chat, adding: 'I think I need to have a word with Santa.' Various employees reacted to the messages with laughing emojis, before Sally Smith, head of health and safety for Morrisons, wrote: 'Just checked and thankfully Barry isn't on here yet is he!' Mr Orton commented 'not yet!' and minutes later Ms Smith added Mr Cochrane to the group chat but was unaware he would be able to read earlier messages. On Dec 20, Mr Cochrane saw the messages and cried at work, before packing up his belongings and leaving the office. He told Mr Orton among other issues he was leaving 'because he had been singled out on the group chat'. 'No option but to resign' When Mr Cochrane returned home, he sent an email titled 'resignation due to being named in sexual content', in which he said he had felt 'humiliated'. He added: 'The job is tough enough and there is lots to do but I would have got to that in time, but after seeing this sexual content and naming me (and only me) I have no option but to resign.' Mr Orton later said he regretted sending the picture, adding that it was 'meant in the spirit of a laugh'. Ms Smith said that she made the comment because she thought 'oh what will Barry think of us' having not been in the meeting or understanding the context of the message. Employment Judge Murdo Macleod said the pair's explanation for their comments was 'entirely credible'. He added: 'We consider that [Mr Cochrane's] reaction was disproportionate, given that he was not involved in the exchange and that it was plainly not directed at him at that time it was posted. 'His outrage at his name being mentioned on the thread is confected, with this litigation in mind.'
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
Sacked high school staffer learns her fate after claiming she was unfairly fired for slapping a schoolgirl on the hand
A lab assistant sacked from a Catholic girls' school has lost her unfair dismissal case after she was filmed slapping a schoolgirl's hand during a rowdy science class. Jillian McLoghlin was fired by St Columba's College in Essendon after the school principal reviewed a video filmed by another student, which showed the veteran technician striking the teenager in front of classmates. The footage was captured during a Year 9 biology lesson that involved students dissecting a bull's eye in August last year. Video captured an audible 'smack' as Ms McLoghlin slapped the 15-year-old girl's hand, prompting the student to recoil in shock and exclaim, 'Oh my God!' Ms McLoghlin maintained the slap was a reflex action to prevent the student from injuring herself on a scalpel she was packing away with a dissection board, scissors, and forceps. She argued her dismissal was unfair and the College had relied unfairly on a video of the incident taken without her permission. Ms McLoghlin admitted she was 'cross' from the misbehaving students who were flicking pieces of a bull's eye at each other during a dissection lesson and that she had told them to stop. But Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman upheld the technician's dismissal, describing the slap as 'forceful', 'entirely unwarranted', and 'difficult to imagine being appropriate in this day and age'. Mr Colman found that the technician did not slap the student with the intention of protecting her. 'It does not make sense that slapping the student's hand would prevent her from cutting herself on a scalpel,' he said. 'There is nothing in the video that is suggestive of there being any safety risk to the student, other than Ms McLoghlin's slap. 'Further, the notion that Ms McLoghlin was trying to protect (the student) is inconsistent with Ms McLoghlin's statement that, if she had been trained on dealing with unruly behaviour, she would have been able to walk away from the situation. Mr Colman said the slap was 'entirely unwarranted'. 'In this day and age, it is difficult to imagine situations in which it would be appropriate for a teacher or a school assistant to slap the hand of a student, but if there are any such situations, this was not one of them.' Mr Colman also found there was no reason why the College should not have made use of the video recording in its investigation of Ms McLoghlin's conduct. 'The school's policy that governs electronic devices in class applies to students,' he said. 'It does not prevent the College's use of video recordings for disciplinary purposes.' He said it was evident Ms McLoghlin had not accepted full responsibility for her conduct or the seriousness of her behaviour. 'She seeks to ascribe some of the blame for her conduct to a lack of training from the College on how to deal with unruly students,' Mr Colman said. 'But one does not need such training to know that it is impermissible to slap a student.' St Columba's College principal Rita Grima gave evidence that the College has in place a policy which specifically prohibits staff from using physical means or corporal punishment to discipline or control students. She said that Ms McLoghlin had been trained on the Code as recently as February 2024 and, as an employee of the College, she was required to comply with it. Last month, the Commission awarded maximum compensation of $55,000 to a teacher sacked for yelling at students.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Man accused of grabbing colleague by throat and using homophobic slur loses unfair dismissal case
A recycling depot worker who denied grabbing his colleague by the throat and using a homophobic slur after his religious beliefs were insulted has lost his unfair dismissal claim at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). Seamus Behan lost his job of 12 years as a van driver for Liberties Recycling Development and Training CLG in February of last year following the altercation with another worker just before Christmas 2023. At a hearing of Mr Behan's complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 2014, Liberties Recycling told the WRC his behaviour on December 20th, 2023 amounted to gross misconduct. The company said the finding was arrived at after what it described as a fair investigation and disciplinary process. READ MORE Company manager Adam Moloney said 'multiple' statements from staff recounted 'off the charts' behaviour from Mr Behan towards the other worker, Mr A. Mr Moloney said workers told him Mr Behan was 'verbally abusive, behaving aggressively, and damaged company property' during the incident. He said it 'wasn't clear' from the statements what had first happened other than that the two men 'pushed each other'. Mr Moloney said Mr Behan was at reception in the depot 'shouting abuse' at Mr A, would not leave when asked and 'kept trying to go at him'. Management tried to persuade gardaí to come, but there was no response by closing time. A duty manager suspended Mr Behan and Mr A and sent them away via separate exits. The complainant's representative, Thomas Behan, argued that witness statements had been 'handpicked' to support a case that his client was 'violent' and that CCTV had been 'purposely left out' of the investigation. The company said any footage of the incident was taped over during the Christmas break, so it was not available when the investigation began in the new year. The tribunal was told the row followed a complaint made by Mr A about Mr Behan's alleged conduct towards him six days earlier. It was alleged the complainant on that occasion grabbed Mr A's hand and squeezed until Mr A asked him to let go. Mr Behan then turned to another worker and allegedly said: 'Watch how I shake a real man's hand.' Mr Behan said he knew nothing of this informal complaint until after the incident on December 20th, with his representative arguing any difficulties between the men ought to have been addressed sooner by management. Mr Behan said Mr A was 'an hour late' returning with a van for a shift handover on December 20th and he was 'in a hurry to get out' so as to avoid working late without pay. 'I went to your man ... he was just numb about everything. Because I didn't know anything about the 14th, I was at the van, and he was at the van. He started mumbling stuff about something, and then he got aggressive towards me,' he said. 'This guy pursued me, I went away from the van, he's aggressive, in my face, spitting in my face,' Mr Behan said, adding that the spitting was not 'intentional'. 'He's giving me lackery about Pope John Paul, lackery about my religion. He deeply upset me,' he said. The complainant said he 'wouldn't repeat' his colleague's remarks during the disciplinary process that followed because it was 'filthy' and 'vulgar' language. Mr Behan denied using a slur toward Mr A in the course of the altercation, as had been indicated in statements gathered by the company. 'I don't even use the word 'f****t',' he said. 'Everyone's twisting and turning statements.' He said a female supervisor was standing between him and Mr A, so it would have been 'impossible for me to grab the man by the neck'. He told the tribunal Mr A pushed him as the altercation continued and that the CCTV footage 'would prove that as well'. He said he was 'well warmed up' by his colleague by the time he reached the office. 'I raised my voice. Is that a sacking offence?' he said. 'No one wanted to investigate my statement ... My statement is the truth, on my religious beliefs.' In her decision, WRC adjudicator Eileen Campbell stated: 'Taking all the circumstances into account I find, as a matter of probability, the complainant's actions on the day and his behaviour on the day to be aggressive, uncontrolled and unacceptable.' She added that, on balance, the company's version of events was 'more convincing than that of the complainant' and there were 'substantial grounds' justifying Mr Behan's dismissal.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Peppa Pig toy exec sacked after ‘threatening boss with a pen'
A former executive at a Peppa Pig toy company has lost almost £300,000 in legal fees after he was sacked for 'brandishing a pen' at his boss. Mark Dowding, former chief financial officer, was fired from The Character Group (TCG) PLC in 2017 after a disciplinary hearing on the basis of a breakdown of trust. The company, which also makes toys for Pokemon and Doctor Who, was then taken to an employment tribunal by Mr Dowding accused of unfair dismissal over an alleged incident where he threatened his bosses with a pen. Mr Dowding lost his claim at the tribunal in 2020, with Employment Judge Omar Khalil saying: 'The tribunal concludes that the incident as described by [Mr Dowding's boss] did occur, which included the claimant pointing towards him brandishing a pen in a threatening manner.' Mr Dowding has since been locked in a five-year court fight as he brought a series of appeals and challenges, as well as launching a High Court claim. The former executive, who was on a salary of £110,000 at the time of his dismissal, faces a bill of £288,000 to pursue his latest claim. Faces losing pension and home This week, High Court judge Richard Spearman KC ordered Mr Dowling to pay the remaining legal fees. He said it means Mr Dowding now 'faces losing' the pension fund, which forms his only regular income, and maybe also his home. The court heard that Mr Dowding was employed by The Character Group from August 2012 to September 2017. Mr Dowding took the company to an employment tribunal, claiming he was unfairly dismissed and 'had been subjected to various acts of victimisation'. However, all of his claims were dismissed. The pen incident was described in the employment tribunal judgment as 'a work-related meeting between the claimant and Mr Kiran Shah (his boss). Their discussion became heated, and voices were raised. 'Mr Shah also alleged that the claimant had pointed a pen towards him, causing Mr Shah to retreat. This was set out in his email, which followed this altercation on the same day. 'In that email, Mr Shah said about the incident, 'Your behaviour was inappropriate and unprofessional. You raised your voice towards me in a threatening manner and pointed a pen in my face whilst rolling forward towards me with your chair. I had to roll my chair back to prevent injury to my face'.' Judge Khalil concluded that the pen threat did occur, and his dismissal was reasonable. 'A very unhappy position' Mr Dowding has spent the last five years challenging that ruling and other orders, before being handed bills for around £288,000 in July 2024. With one claim still live against the company – relating to his treatment by his former employers – an order was made last December to secure the existing costs bills on Mr Dowding's £850,000 home in south London. This week, Judge Spearman made orders to end several elements of Mr Dowding's claim, including his bid to sue his former boss personally alongside the company. The judge ordered that the rest of the case be struck out unless he pays the £288,000 he already owes. 'He is in a very unhappy position because, on the disclosure he has made, he can ill-afford to meet these costs liabilities. 'That is a consequence of bringing and pursuing expensive litigation, which has all been unsuccessful, resulting in the costs orders.'
