workplace-relations-commission Archives

here’s a rewritten version of the article, aiming for 100% uniqueness while retaining the core information:

Employee Dismissed After “Fing Bh” Outburst on Customer Call, WRC Rules

A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator has upheld the dismissal of an employee, Ms. Lonergan, who was fired after calling a customer a “fing bh” during a lengthy and frustrating customer service call. The adjudicator found the dismissal to be fair, dismissing Ms. Lonergan’s claims of unfair dismissal and workplace discrimination.

The incident occurred during a particularly challenging customer interaction in June of last year. Ms. Lonergan reported being on the phone for an hour and 45 minutes without receiving assistance, believing the call was on hold at the time of her outburst.

The WRC adjudicator, Penelope McGrath, noted that the audio recording of the call, which had been reviewed during an internal company investigation, had sadly been erased by the time the case reached the tribunal.However, the adjudicator stated there was “no doubt” that Ms. Lonergan had used the offensive language. The company’s investigator, a junior operations manager, provided sworn testimony that the exact phrase used was “What a fing bh.”

Ms. McGrath acknowledged that the recording had been played during the company’s disciplinary proceedings, and at that time, there was no dispute that the language used was unacceptable.The adjudicator did credit ms. Lonergan for admitting her mistake promptly and reporting it to her team leader.

Ms. Lonergan remained employed for several days while the disciplinary process unfolded in early July 2024. Her dismissal was followed by her being escorted from the premises, a situation the adjudicator deemed “regrettable.”

In addition to the unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Lonergan had also alleged workplace discrimination due to her health issues. She cited instances of absence from work due to ill health and a breakdown at work stemming from personal issues and tough customer interactions. Ms. Lonergan claimed she was “continually harassed about taking too long coming back from toilet and breaks” despite her health struggles.She expressed her belief that the company used the incident on the call as an opportunity to terminate her employment because of her ongoing health concerns.

The company, however, maintained that Ms. Lonergan’s allegations of discrimination were entirely unfounded.

Regarding the disability discrimination aspect, Ms. McGrath stated she did not get the impression that Ms.Lonergan’s team leader was more inclined to “chivvy” her along regarding breaks than other staff members. The adjudicator also noted the absence of any prior disciplinary issues related to Ms. Lonergan’s timekeeping, suggesting the team leader was likely fulfilling her managerial duties.The company’s representative argued that Ms. Lonergan’s use of the offensive language towards a customer on a recorded call constituted gross misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal. Ms. McGrath concurred with this position in her decision.Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed Ms. Lonergan’s claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Further claims made by Ms. Lonergan under various employment acts, including those related to working time, terms of employment, payment of wages, and minimum notice, were also dismissed.

This article details a case where an employee, Ms. Breslin, successfully claimed unfair dismissal due to her employer’s failure to address work-related stress and health concerns.

Hear’s a breakdown of the key points:

Employee’s Concerns: Ms.Breslin reported a deterioration in her mental and physical health, attributing it to a poor work-life balance, late closing times, understaffing, and a stressful/toxic work environment. She experienced anxiety,low mood,high blood pressure,and gastrointestinal problems.
employer’s Response: The employer largely dismissed her concerns as “commercial points” or “a matter for the shop,” focusing on minor issues like medical certificates and annual leave but failing to address the more significant problems of roster issues and staff shortages.
Medical Leave and Interaction: Ms. Breslin took seven periods of certified medical leave between January 2022 and summer 2023. During this time, she repeatedly communicated her belief that her illness was work-related and that major obstacles were hindering her ability to do her job.
Resignation: Ms. Breslin resigned in October 2023,after her last shift in June 2023.Her resignation was described by the managing director as “pleasant and made no mention of issues.”
Tribunal’s Decision: The adjudicator found that the employer failed in its duty of care to Ms. Breslin by not adequately addressing her health, safety, and wellbeing concerns. This failure was considered a “repudiation of contract.”
Outcome: Ms. Breslin’s unfair dismissal claim was upheld, and she was awarded €15,800, representing her full losses for five months of unemployment. A separate disability discrimination claim was ruled out of time.

In essence, the case highlights the importance of employers taking employee grievances seriously, particularly those related to health and wellbeing, and the legal consequences of failing to do so.

workplace-relations-commission

Call Centre Dismissal: Worker Loses Case Over Abusive Language Incident

Burned out lingerie saleswoman wins €15,800 for constructive dismissal – The Irish Times