Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Taylor  Flannery

Lorat Trading Ltd t/a  The Phone Stores

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Peter Dunlea of Peninsula

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00061679-004

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00061679-006

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00061679-007

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00061679-008

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00061679-009

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00062105-001

08/03/2024

The complainant has made a number of complaints of unfair treatment and discrimination following an incident with a colleague.

Employment Equality Acts: CA-00061679-004, CA-00061679-006 & CA-00062106-001

The complainant submits that he was victimised, subjected to harassment, not provided with reasonable accommodation and this was related to his disability.

On 11 January 2024 he had a disagreement with a colleague and when he told her he was dyslexic she verbally attacked, harassed, threatened and discriminated against him. He felt trapped at his work station by her aggressive behaviour, which included calling him discriminatory names. She carried on despite his requests for her to “get out of my face”. There was no intervention from the supervisor.

He raised his voice to get her away from him. The complainant felt he had no option but to leave work. The Director asked him to stay and chat but Mr Flannery says he was in no fit state to calmly have a discussion.

He says this amounts to harassment.

The following day he was called in to work by the Operations Manager and given an unsigned written warning with the HR Manager’s name at the bottom. The complainant says there was no investigation. The Operations Manager told him there was too much work involved if he brought HR into the matter. He was told the matter was over and expected to return to work as if nothing had happened. He was also threatened with instant termination if another incident arose. He understood the colleague involved in the incident was given the same letter.

The complainant questioned the decision to give him a warning, given the harassment he suffered. The Operations Manager told him he was welcome to leave if he did not like the outcome. He was also told that “under normal circumstances” his contract would have been terminated, however, as the complainant was excelling at sales he decided to make an exception.

The complainant says he was not happy with the outcome and the Operations Manager told him a referral to HR was not an option.

Mr Flannery had a week’s holiday during which he reflected on the situation and realised the job he was hoping to make a career of, had been undermined, along with his right to work free of harassment and discrimination. On his return he contacted the HR Manager, Cosmin Constantin, saying he wanted to file a grievance. Verbally, Mr Constatin said the complainant had been in the wrong and procedures had been followed.

The complainant advised Mr Constantin that he was in the process of referring a complaint to the WRC, as he had not been offered the option to have his treatment investigated by the respondent.

The complainant sent Mr Constantin an account of what had happened on 11 February 2024 and he replied saying they would look into the matter and an Employee Handbook was made available.

He saw a doctor and was signed off for 6 weeks. He resigned on 25 March 2024.

Industrial Relations Act, 2015 - Penalisation – CA-00061679-007

The complainant submits he was subject to penalisation as a result of taking an action under the Employment Equality Act, Industrial Relations Act and Terms of Employment (Information) Act. When he said that he was going to the WRC he submits that he was told there was “no need for that”.

Terms of Employment Act – CA-00061679—008 & CA-00061679-009

The complainant submits his statement of core terms contained false or misleading information, when the Grievance and Disciplinary procedures were not implemented.

Background

The respondent submits the complainant began employment with them on 25 September 2023 and worked in telephone sales. On 11 January 2024 there was a dispute between Mr Flannery and a colleague. The colleague asked the complainant to keep his comments to himself and went to lunch. The complainant discussed the incident with his supervisor and said he would “not take this shit” from the colleague. The colleague had returned and overheard part of the conversation and the argument between them escalated. The manager attempted to diffuse the situation.

The complainant then walked out, this was seen by the Managing Director who approached him. The complainant said he was angry and that he needed to go off and cool down. The MD asked the complainant to return and speak to him after he had done this. The complainant agreed but did not return later that day.

The complainant returned the following day and was called to a meeting with the Operations Manager. Mr Flannery was issued with an official warning, which was confirmed in a letter. The colleague involved in the incident was also issued with an official warning.

Mr Flannery then began a period of scheduled annual leave. Following this, on 9 February 2024 the complainant stated he was beginning a period of sick leave. On 11 February the complainant contacted the HR Manager, Mr Cosmin Constantin, and there was correspondence and phone calls between them, discussing the complainant’s grievance and the way to appeal the disciplinary action. In a letter from the complainant he referred to his disability. The was the first mention of a disability. The HR Manager replied saying he would be opening a formal grievance procedure. He then outlined how the process would work and advised the complainant he could follow a formal or informal process, in line with the respondent’s procedures.

Mr Constantin then commenced an investigation of the incident and approached the other parties involved for their account of events. He waited for Mr Flannery to re-engage but he never returned from sick leave. He subsequently resigned on 25 March 2024.    

Employment Equality Acts: CA-00061679-004, CA-00061679-006 & CA-00062106-001

In relation to the complainant’s allegations of discrimination on the grounds of his disability the respondent submits the complainant has failed to establish any primary facts upon which he seeks to rely and has failed to show any facts of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination.

Also, the complainant has failed to furnish any evidence of an alleged disability. The respondent submits they had no knowledge of any disability until the complainant raised his grievance. They initiated an investigation at this point but the complainant did not participate. The respondent submits they cannot be found to have discriminated against the complainant on this ground.

Penalisation – CA-00061679-007

The respondent submits they did not penalise the complainant when he raised his complaints.

Terms of Employment Act – CA-00061679—008 & CA-00061679-009

The respondent submits that all employees, including the complainant, have access to their procedures in the Employee Handbook. The incident would have been investigated under the Grievance Procedure if the complainant had engaged with them.

Employment Equality Acts: CA-00061679-004, CA-00061679-006 & CA-00062106-001

The complainant is claiming that he was that he was victimised, subjected to harassment, not provided with reasonable accommodation and this was related to his disability. He says he suffers from ADHD, Dyslexia and ASD. The respondent has submitted they were unaware the complainant had any disability. The complainant says that colleagues knew he suffered from these disabilities and certain colleagues mocked him because of his disabilities. He also says the respondent should have been aware of his disabilities as he included them on his CV when applying to work for them.

Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts says “discrimination shall be taken to occur where a person is treated lass favourably than another person has been in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified”. The first time the complainant raised a disability with the respondent was when he raised his grievance with the HR Manager. At this time he provided no evidence supporting this, prior to his resignation.

 From the evidence provided I conclude that the respondent was not aware that the complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, his initial treatment following the incident on 11 January 2024 was the same as the colleague involved.

In these circumstances I find the complainant is unable to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination.

Penalisation – CA-61679-007

The complainant has claimed he was penalised in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015. However, this Act deals only with Registered Employment Agreements. None of the complaints submitted has any thing to do with a Registered Employment Agreement and I conclude this complaint must fail.

Terms of Employment Act – CA-00061679—008 & CA-00061679-009

The complainant submitted are that the respondent did not satisfactorily implement the provisions of their procedures. However, Mr Flannery has provided no evidence that the provision of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act were contravened by the respondent. I, therefore, find that these complaints are not well founded.

Employment Equality Acts: CA-00061679-004, CA-00061679-006 & CA-00062106-001: for the reasons given above I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Penalisation – CA-00061679-007: for the reasons given I find this complaint is not well founded

Terms of Employment Act – CA-00061679—008 & CA-00061679-009: For the reasons given above I find that the complaint in relation to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well founded.

No prima facie case of discrimination