Latest news with #WRC
The Journal
3 hours ago
- Business
- 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
RTÉ News
8 hours ago
- Business
- 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.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
NCAD could not ‘wipe slate clean' after student with Down syndrome failed exam, WRC hears
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has heard a third-level institution made 'every effort' to support a young artist with Down syndrome pursuing a degree – but that it could not 'wipe the slate clean' after she failed a crucial first-year module. The director of the National College of Art and Design (NCAD) gave evidence on Thursday that in the wake of a 'heated' meeting with the student's parents, the woman's mother, a journalist, told her 'they would make sure that my reputation was damaged'. Ellie Dunne (25) – who is said by her legal team to be the first student with Down syndrome to enrol on a degree programme at NCAD on Thomas Street in Dublin 8 – is pursuing a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 against the college. Her case is the college failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation during her first semester after starting in September 2023 and that disability discrimination continued when the college required her to re-sit a failed first-year module. The college's lawyers have denied discrimination 'in the strongest possible terms'. READ MORE At an earlier WRC hearing on Wednesday , the college's head of academic affairs, Dr Siún Hanrahan, said some 32 per cent of the college's approximately 1,400 students had self-declared additional needs of some description. She said the college offers a range of supports to these students. Some were 'tailored' packages on foot of a needs assessment while 'less tailored' support was available more broadly to those who had simply self-declared additional needs. Dr Hanrahan said there was a 'significant difference' between the requirements of the level-five art course completed by Ms Dunne at Stillorgan College of Further Education and the level-eight bachelor's degree at NCAD. Ms Dunne had access to assistive technology and an educational support worker who was available for two days a week, the tribunal heard. After Ms Dunne failed a module, the college made the support worker available for five days. . The witness said Ms Dunne's parents, Katy McGuinness and Feidhlim Dunne, took it as 'a very offensive thing that Ms Dunne had not successfully achieved the learning outcomes of the module'. Ellie Dunne, centre, with her parents Katy McGuinness and Felim Dunne at the WRC in Dublin. Photograph: Stephen Bourke '[Their] view was that the slate should be wiped clean,' she said. 'Under the [academic] regulations, that's just not possible.' . The tribunal heard the college proposed to allow Ms Dunne re-sit the assessment with access to workshops and without academic penalty, and to have it considered by an exam board the following autumn. Barrister Rosemary Mallon, for the respondent, instructed by Paul McDonald of AJP McDonald Solicitors, pointed out she asked Ms Dunne in cross-examination last year whether she 'knew about that offer'. Ms Mallon said Ms Dunne had indicated she did not know about it and would have liked to have availed of it. 'If Ellie didn't know, it was because she was not told by her parents?' Ms Mallon asked Dr Hanrahan. 'Yes,' Dr Hanrahan said. At a January 2024 meeting 'any suggestion of a repeat was met with a lot of opposition,' the college's director, Prof Sarah Glennie said, but mediation was agreed to by the family. Prof Glennie said that during a phone call two days later Ms McGuinness said 'they would make sure that my reputation was damaged' and that 'they would bury me in the process'. 'That was directly said, that they would 'bury you' in the process?' adjudicator Breiffni O'Neill asked. Prof Glennie confirmed this. In cross examination, counsel for the complainant Aisling Mulligan, appearing instructed by KOD Lyons, put it to the witness that Ms McGuinness had 'disputed' telling Prof Glennie she 'would be buried'. Prof Glennie said: 'That is my recollection.' When the disputed remark was first raised last year by Ms Mallon, Ms McGuinness said it was 'a phrase not familiar to me'. The case has been adjourned to October.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Coca Cola marketer wins €68k for maternity discrimination
A marketing executive at Coca Cola who said she was "bullied" into taking a demotion from a management job to "nearly a graduate position" when she got back to work after having a baby has won €68,000 for maternity discrimination. Lisa Deveney told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing last winter that she thought she was going to return to her old job as premium spirits marketing manager, which she had held since 2018, at the end of maternity leave in January 2024. She said she suffered an "acute stress reaction" after her colleagues were told the employee brought in to cover her absence would be staying in her former role. Coca Cola HBC Ireland Ltd has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on foot of a complaint by Ms Deveney. The company had denied that complaint, along with a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, which was not upheld by the tribunal. Ms Deveney's evidence was that she had been absent for one year and 21 days on the day she was to go back to work on 22 January this year, owing to pregnancy-related health issues. It was her second period of maternity leave, she told the WRC. She said the first she was told that she would not be going back in as premium spirits marketing manager was at the end of a call the Friday before the week she was due back. "I was a bit nervous about going back. There hadn't been anything set up," Ms Deveney said. She said a manager, Mr A, told her: "You won't be returning to your role. We're looking for you to return to a new role." "He didn't know the [job] title at the time. I thought at the time it sounded like a demotion," Ms Deveney said, referring to concerns about the fact she would no longer be reporting to a manager at director level. "He said it would be good experience," Ms Deveney said. Her response was: "Listen I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram," and that she asked for the job specification. "Obviously, I'm pretty sideballed. I thought I was getting my job back," she said. She said that Mr A told her they would sit down and discuss the position when she was back in the office on Monday 22 January. The complainant said she expected to see a job spec to review over the weekend, but that this was not forthcoming. Ms Deveney said the next time she and the manager spoke was at a wider team meeting at 3.30pm that same day. "[He] started the call and said it was brilliant that I was back, that I was taking the premium spirits role and moving to [the other] team." "I assumed it was going to be a conversation, not a done deal – obviously it was," she said. "There's a vast difference in experience," she said of the new role description. "Three years' experience, that could be nearly a graduate position – for me that's quite a junior position," Ms Deveney said. She said she had to ask another colleague on the Tuesday to "hold off" on sending an email to the new team, telling her that she was "not accepting the position". "I felt I was bullied into taking a role," she said. Mr A's evidence to the WRC was that the role change was a process he and the complainant "were working through" prior to a formal offer being made. His evidence was that Ms Deveney was "at no time… asked to accept the position or to say that she wasn't interested". He said she told him she would "give it a go" and that he felt it was okay to move forward with it. He explained that he planned to meet with Ms Deveney about the role prior to making a formal offer, but was "incredibly busy" the day she returned to work on Monday 22 January. He said that he had outlined the role as a "proposal" at the team meeting that day and that Ms Deveney had come to him afterwards stating that she was "blindsided" and raising concerns about demotion. Mr A said he only became aware the following evening that the arrangement was drawing "an emotional response". Ms Deveney said she suffered a panic attack on the evening of Tuesday 23rd January and called in sick for the following day. She did not return to work prior to tendering her resignation in March 2024, the tribunal was told. Cillian McGovern BL, instructed by Aaron McKenna Solicitors for the complainant, said a worker hired in to cover his client's absence had been "left in that position" when his client ought to have taken the job back. Mary Fay BL, appearing for Coca Cola instructed by Arthur Cox solicitors, told the WRC the job Ms Deveney previously occupied had "just grown to such an extent it would not be reasonable to expect one person to do all the duties" and that the position had to be "split". In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens examined the job descriptions for Ms Deveney's former job and the new position. She noted that the grade and pay were the same for both jobs. However, the old role was described as a "manager" position, reporting to director level, while the new role was described as a "lead" position and did not involve managing a budget, the adjudicator noted. The "manager" position described responsibilities at a "strategic level" while the new "portfolio" lead had duties that were "very much operational", she wrote. She added that it was "not difficult to imagine how offensive" the suggestion that "a small portion" of the budget Ms Deveney once managed would be requested for her. Ms Owens concluded that the new post "constituted a demotion for the complainant". Ms Owens also wrote that she was "struck by the inconsistencies" in Mr A's account of his discussions with the complainant on the new role, while Ms Deveney had been "consistent throughout". She concluded on the balance of probabilities that the employer had "already decided that the complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options". Ms Owens called it a "fait accompli", and also rejected a further argument by the firm that the transfer was required because of organisational change. She concluded that Ms Deveney had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her former position after maternity leave. The adjudicator awarded €68,000 in compensation for the breach, just short of a year's basic salary.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Coca-Cola ordered to pay €68,000 to marketing executive demoted on return from maternity leave
A marketing executive at Coca-Cola who said she was 'bullied' into taking a demotion from a management job to 'nearly a graduate position' when she got back to work after having a baby has won €68,000 for maternity discrimination. Lisa Deveney told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing last winter that she thought she was going to return to her old job as premium spirits marketing manager, which she had held since 2018, at the end of maternity leave in January 2024. She said she suffered an 'acute stress reaction' after her colleagues were told the employee brought in to cover her absence would be staying in her former role. Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Ltd has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on foot of a complaint by Ms Deveney. READ MORE The company had denied that complaint, along with a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, which was not upheld by the tribunal. Ms Deveney's evidence was that she had been absent for one year and 21 days on the day she was to go back to work on 22nd January this year, owing to pregnancy-related health issues. It was her second period of maternity leave, she told the WRC. Bobby Healy on why Manna drone delivery could be the 'biggest technology company in the world for its space' Listen | 67:08 She said the first she was told that she would not be going back in as premium spirits marketing manager was at the end of a call the Friday before the week she was due back. 'I was a bit nervous about going back. There hadn't been anything set up,' Ms Deveney said. She said a manager, Mr A, told her: 'You won't be returning to your role. We're looking for you to return to a new role.' 'He didn't know the [job] title at the time. I thought at the time it sounded like a demotion,' Ms Deveney said, referring to concerns about the fact she would no longer be reporting to a manager at director level. 'He said it would be good experience,' Ms Deveney said. Her response was: 'Listen I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram,' and that she asked for the job specification. 'Obviously, I'm pretty sideballed. I thought I was getting my job back,' she said. She said that Mr A told her they would sit down and discuss the position when she was back in the office on Monday, 22nd January. The complainant said she expected to see a job spec to review over the weekend, but that this was not forthcoming. Ms Deveney said the next time she and the manager spoke was at a wider team meeting at 3.30pm that same day. '[He] started the call and said it was brilliant that I was back, that I was taking the premium spirits role and moving to [the other] team.' 'I assumed it was going to be a conversation, not a done deal – obviously it was,' she said. 'There's a vast difference in experience,' she said of the new role description. 'Three years' experience, that could be nearly a graduate position – for me that's quite a junior position,' Ms Deveney said. She said she had to ask another colleague on the Tuesday to 'hold off' on sending an email to the new team, telling her that she was 'not accepting the position'. 'I felt I was bullied into taking a role,' she said. Mr A's evidence to the WRC was that the role change was a process he and the complainant 'were working through' prior to a formal offer being made. His evidence was that Ms Deveney was 'at no time ... asked to accept the position or to say that she wasn't interested'. He said she told him she would 'give it a go' and that he felt it was okay to move forward with it. He explained that he planned to meet with Ms Deveney about the role prior to making a formal offer, but was 'incredibly busy' the day she returned to work on Monday 22nd January. He said that he had outlined the role as a 'proposal' at the team meeting that day and that Ms Deveney had come to him afterwards stating that she was 'blindsided' and raising concerns about demotion. Mr A said he only became aware the following evening that the arrangement was drawing 'an emotional response'. Ms Deveney said she suffered a panic attack on the evening of Tuesday 23rd January and called in sick for the following day. She did not return to work prior to tendering her resignation in March, 2024, the tribunal was told. Cillian McGovern BL, instructed by Aaron McKenna Solicitors for the complainant, said a worker hired in to cover his client's absence had been 'left in that position' when his client ought to have taken the job back. Mary Fay BL, appearing for Coca-Cola instructed by Arthur Cox solicitors, told the WRC the job Ms Deveney previously occupied had 'just grown to such an extent it would not be reasonable to expect one person to do all the duties' and that the position had to be 'split'. In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens examined the job descriptions for Ms Deveney's former job and the new position. She noted that the grade and pay were the same for both jobs. However, the old role was described as a 'manager' position, reporting to director level, while the new role was described as a 'lead' position and did not involve managing a budget, the adjudicator noted. The 'manager' position described responsibilities at a 'strategic level' while the new 'portfolio' lead had duties that were 'very much operational', she wrote. She added that it was 'not difficult to imagine how offensive' the suggestion that 'a small portion' of the budget Ms Deveney once managed would be requested for her. Ms Owens concluded that the new post 'constituted a demotion for the complainant'. Ms Owens also wrote that she was 'struck by the inconsistencies' in Mr A's account of his discussions with the complainant on the new role, while Ms Deveney had been 'consistent throughout'. She concluded on the balance of probabilities that the employer had 'already decided that the complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options'. Ms Owens called it a 'fait accompli', and also rejected a further argument by the firm that the transfer was required because of organisational change. She concluded that Ms Deveney had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her former position after maternity leave. The adjudicator awarded €68,000 in compensation for the breach, just short of a year's basic salary.
