Worker who bullied gay colleague awarded €3k over "procedural failure"
A hotel night manager sacked for bullying a gay colleague has won €3,000 for unfair dismissal because his employer missed an email from him attempting to appeal his firing.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found the hotel operator, Cantarini Limited "acted reasonably" by sacking the worker, Omar Mohammed Osman – but breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when it missed his email asking to exercise his right of appeal, and failed to respond.
Mr Osman, who was a night manager at the City Quay aparthotel in Dublin City Centre, was sacked on foot of findings that he was bullying a gay colleague, Mr D, because of his sexuality.
However, Mr Osman argued that he was accused of homophobia in a "thinly veiled attempt to penalise him" for raising concerns about how he was being treated by managers.
Mr D had complained that Mr Osman called him "a big homosexual" and "princess", the WRC noted. Mr D further alleged that Mr Osman called him by a nickname that "sounded like he was being referred to as an animal" – as well as whistling at him and mocking his accent.
Mr Osman's evidence to the WRC was that he has "no issue with homosexuals" and is "not homophobic", the adjudicator hearing the case noted.
He stated that he couldn't have whistled at his former colleague, because he did not "know how to whistle". He also told the tribunal that when he used the word "princess", he had been referring to a female colleague, the decision recorded.
His position was that none of the allegations made against him by Mr D were true.
The tribunal was told that prior to Mr D's complaint, Mr Osman had received a written warning by his manager for "letting the team down" by leaving work around 30 minutes into a shift in December 2023.
However, Mr Osman complained to the company that his line manager and other staff had been "in the back office when they should have been working" and that the manager was "shouting and cursing" at him, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Osman emailed the company's HR manager complaining of "bullying" from a night duty team leader, Mr L, on 14 March 2024, two days before he was interviewed for the first time in connection with the harassment complaint against him.
He formalised the grievance later in the month, before being interviewed again in connection with the dignity at work investigation.
Five days later, the disciplinary process concluded with findings that Mr Osman had been "bullying and harassing a colleague in relation to their sexual orientation and race", and the complainant was dismissed.
After the matter was heard by the WRC in January, Mr Osman's legal team furnished the WRC with an email he had sent asking to appeal the dismissal.
The respondent's head of human resources, Victoria Scrase, told the WRC there was no response because the person Mr Osman had written to had themselves left the company four days after Mr Osman's sacking.
Mr Osman's position was that it was "unfair to investigate a complaint made about him when he had been complaining for six months about how he was treated and nothing had been done".
His barrister, Joseph Bradley BL, appearing instructed by Melissa Wynne of Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that his client had been subjected to "aggressive and violent outbursts at work" and had been met with a "dismissive" stance when he first complained in October 2023.
"He was accused of homophobia, in a thinly veiled attempt to penalise him for raising concerns about how he was treated by managers," Mr Bradley submitted.
Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision that even at hearing before the WRC, Mr Osman seemed to be "unaffected by the possibility that he offended his colleague". She did not accept his explanation for his use of the word "princess", she wrote.
"A simple acknowledgement of the effect that his behaviour had on his colleague may have made a difference and could have avoided his dismissal," Ms Byrne added.
She said she could see no alternative except to find the company was "reasonable" to dismiss Mr Osman, a worker she wrote was "unable to see the effect of his behaviour… and apologise for the distress he had caused".
"It is very regrettable that he didn't seek some wise counsel before he engaged in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his dismissal," she added.
However, she concluded that because the company did not respond to an email from Mr Osman seeking to exercise his right of appeal, the dismissal was unfair because of this "procedural failure".
Ms Byrne rejected further claims of penalisation in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by Mr Osman.
Mr Osman's position was that he was only accused of homophobia and subjected to disciplinary action as a reaction to complaining about Mr L.
Ms Byrne concluded that that Mr Osman had played a part in the conflict among staff and that his grievances were addressed by management. He "was attempting to distract attention" from Mr D's complaint against him when he raised his grievances in March 2024, she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
a day ago
- The Journal
Shop cleared of discriminating against children who tried to make €68 payment in 10c and 20c coins
A SHOP HAS BEEN cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked if they had anything larger when they tried to pay for €68 worth of goods with 10 and 20 cent coins. The father of the two children – a boy and a girl – submitted a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on their behalf and alleged that his children were discriminated against as they were members of the Traveler community. The identities of both parties have been anonymised due to the involvement of children. It had been alleged that the two children were refused service at the shop because they were members of the Travelling community and that the children had suffered embarrassment with both locals and friends as a result of the incident. In a decision published today, the WRC said the complaint was 'not well founded' and that the cashier was 'reasonable' in asking if the children had larger value coins to complete the purchase. The shop in question is family-owned, has operated for over 60 years and employs 70 people. The incident happened on 22 December, 2023, which the shop said is one of its busiest days of the year in the run-up to Christmas. The shop said that at around 1.30pm, two children approached a cashier with a number of items which totalled €68 and that the children initially paid in €1 and €2 coins, as well as 10c and 20c coins. The shop said the cashier counted the coins and it came to €26.80 and that this 'took some time to count'. It is the shop's position that when the cashier asked if the children had the rest of the money, the young girl said she had more coins in a small purse. The cashier said the purse contained a large amount of 10c and 20c coins and that she then asked the girl if she had notes to make up the difference – the young girl did not but said she would ask her father who was in the car. The young girl went outside and returned with her father and the cashier said a 'large queue was building up at her till' in the meantime. The shop said the children's father 'took issue with the cashier' and that the cashier 'found him to be very confrontational'. The shop said the father asked why the cashier 'wasn't taking their money' but that the cashier 'made it clear she was not refusing to take his money but asked if he had any notes as it was a very busy day'. Advertisement The shop said it has CCTV footage which shows the father 'holding large denomination notes during the interaction with the cashier but chose not to use them'. One of the store managers was then approached by the father, who said the cashier had 'refused to take the coins'. The manager said that while the complainant 'had notes, they wished to pay in full using coins'. The manager is said to have explained that given the time of the year, it would be difficult for the cashier to count that amount of coinage and asked if the father could 'count out the exact amount in coins or count it into five or ten euro batches'. The shop also offered coin bags to count the monies into but said the complainant again argued that the shop was 'refusing to accept our payment'. The shop said it tried to find a solution and that an apology was offered and that a voucher was also offered as a 'goodwill gesture' for the 'misunderstanding' but this was refused. The shop said it had never had a complaint against them and that the complainant was 'not treated in a manner less favourable than any other customer'. The shop added that when it was clear there was an intention to use small coins to pay for a balance of up to €40, the cashier asked if the balance could be paid with notes and that this was 'interpreted' as a refusal to serve. WRC Adjudication Officer Peter O'Brien said the 'core issue' is whether the cashier deliberately did not complete the transaction because they were members of the Traveller community. O'Brien deemed it was 'reasonable and not prejudicial of the cashier, with a queue building up, to ask the minors had they larger value coins or notes to complete their purchases'. He noted that the transaction was put on hold while the children went out to their father and that from the evidence supplied by the cashier, she never refused to complete the purchase but asked if there was a more convenient way to pay. O'Brien described this as a 'normal exchange between a cashier and customer' and that from the available evidence, the transaction was cancelled at the father's request. He also noted that repeated offers of apology or attempts to resolve the situation were not accepted. It was deemed that the request to pay with larger value notes or coins 'could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day'. The WRC concluded that the cashier did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct and that her actions were 'reasonable' and 'could have applied to any member of society she was engaging with in the circumstances described'. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c coins
A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had 'anything larger' when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins. The children's father filed a complaint accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on December 22nd, 2023, because they were members of the Travelling Community. The claim was ruled 'not well-founded' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published on Friday, which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at about 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for a girl and boy whose father was outside the premises in a car. READ MORE The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. '[It] took some time to count,' she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month. When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with 'a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside', she told the WRC. The cashier then asked the children whether they had 'anything larger to pay with'. She explained that there was 'a large queue building up' at her till. The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him 'very confrontational'. She told the WRC she 'made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money' and had only asked for notes because it was 'a very busy day'. There were 'a lot more than 50 coins involved'. The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her he had banknotes, but told her he 'wished to pay in full using coins'. The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said. The father replied: 'You are refusing to accept our payment.' She said she was 'trying to find a solution' and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change, but the father 'turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation'. The father gave evidence that the children told him at the car that they 'were not being served' and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he 'supported what [his wife] had said about the event' in presenting the claim. The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were 'refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community'. 'The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident.' The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the 'misunderstanding' in a bid to de-escalate the situation, as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused. Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published on Friday that it was 'not prejudicial' for the cashier to ask the children if they had 'larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases'. He noted that by law, 'no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction'. He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was 'hearsay'. The cashier's evidence was that she 'never refused to complete the purchase' but simply asked the children whether there was 'a more convenient way to pay', he wrote. 'The request to pay with larger-value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day,' he wrote. He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she 'did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct', and dismissed the complaint.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Shop cleared of discrimination over €68 payment in coins
A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins. The children's father filed a complaint accusing the accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on 22 December 2023 because they were members of the Traveller Community. The claim was ruled "not well founded" by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published today (FRI), which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at around 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier had scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for the girl and boy, whose father was outside the premises in a car. The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. "[It] took some time to count," she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month. When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with "a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside", she told the WRC. The cashier then asked the children whether they had "anything larger to pay with". She explained that there was "a large queue building up" at her till. The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him "very confrontational". She told the WRC she "made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money" and had only asked for notes because it was "a very busy day". There were "a lot more than 50 coins involved". The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her that he had banknotes, but told her he "wished to pay in full using coins". The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said. The father of the children replied: "You are refusing to accept our payment." She said she was "trying to find a solution" and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change – but the father of the children "turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation". The children's father gave evidence that they told him at the car that they "were not being served" and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he "supported what [his wife] had said about the event" in presenting the claim. The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community". "The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident". The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the "misunderstanding" in a bid to de-escalate the situation as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused. Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published today that it was "not prejudicial" for the cashier to ask the children if they had "larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases". He noted that by law, "no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction". He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was "hearsay". The cashier's evidence that she "never refused to complete the purchase" but simply asked the children whether there was "a more convenient way to pay", he wrote. "The request to pay with larger value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day," he wrote. He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she "did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct", and dismissed the complaint.
