Latest news with #WorkplaceRelationsCommission
The Journal
20 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
Irish Times
a day ago
- Business
- 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
a day 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.
RTÉ News
3 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.
BreakingNews.ie
4 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Court sets aside three days for hearing of Elon Musk's X appeal against record €550,131 award
The Labour Court has set aside three days at the end of next month to hear Elon Musk's X appeal against a ruling that it must pay out an Irish record unfair dismissal award of €550,131 to a former executive. In the ruling last August, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Michael MacNamee found that Twitter International UC - since renamed X Internet Unlimited Company- unfairly dismissed the company's former Director Source to Pay, Gary Rooney in December 2022 after he failed to respond to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email. Advertisement Mr Rooney has yet to receive any money as the case is before the Labour Court on appeal from Twitter International UC. On Tuesday, solicitor for Mr Rooney, Barry Kenny of Kenny Sullivan Solicitors in Bray, confirmed that the case 'is listed for hearing in the Labour Court on July 29th for three days'. Mr Kenny said, 'My client is anxious to put all this all behind him.' He said: 'The WRC determined that X's treatment of him as a long-standing and loyal employee amounted to an unfair dismissal. Mr Rooney is anxious that the Labour Court will affirm this decision.' Advertisement He said: 'Mr Rooney is also hopeful that the claim under the Payment of Wages Act and his loss of income arising due to the fact that he was unfairly dismissed is also affirmed.' Mr Kenny said: 'It is open to the Labour Court to increase or reduce sums awarded in the WRC as it will be a De Novo hearing.' He said that 'X have advised that they intend to call at least three witnesses, some or all of them may be giving evidence remotely from the USA. He said: 'Mr Rooney is the only witness in his own case. ' Advertisement At the WRC, Twitter International UC fully contested Mr Rooney's claim over five days of hearing, contending that he had resigned voluntarily. In his findings, Mr MacNamee found that Mr Rooney was dismissed because he did not click 'yes' to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email on November 16th 2022 and for that reason alone. On November 16th 2022, Mr Rooney and the Twitter workforce received an email from Mr Musk who said: 'to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing a grade.[....] 'If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below.' Advertisement After Mr Rooney opted not to click 'yes' on the link, three days later, on November 19th, 2022, Mr Rooney received a further company email which stated that it is 'to acknowledge your decision to resign and accept the voluntary separation offer'. On November 26th 2022, Mr Rooney - with the company since 2013 - emailed his employer to outline 'that at no time have I indicated to Twitter that I am resigning my position, nor have I seen any separation agreement, let alone accepted one'. In evidence, Mr Rooney told the WRC that prior to the change of ownership, he loved his job. On receiving Mr Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email, Mr Rooney said his first reaction was disbelief and he was initially afraid even to open it for fear that it was spam or malware. Advertisement Twitter International UC's Senior Director of Human Resources, Ms. Lauren Wegman, told the hearing that Mr Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email was sent to 270 employees in Ireland, which was the balance of workers not affected by redundancies, and 235 clicked 'yes'. In relation to the remaining 35 employees, Ms. Wegman said, 'We accepted their resignations'. Ireland Pay cap of €500,000 at AIB and PTSB removed, Finan... Read More Ms Wegman said the mood amongst workers at the time was mixed with some excited about 'Twitter 2.0' while others were more negative and wanted out of the company. The record €550,131 award was made up of Mr Rooney's remuneration losses of €350,131 from January 2023 to May 2024 and estimated future remuneration losses of €200,000. The remuneration losses were based on Mr Rooney's Twitter remuneration of €323,560 made up of €151,225 in pay and €172,335 in deferred cash consideration. Mr Rooney secured a new role with an employer in the banking sector in September 2023 on total remuneration of €129,897.
