Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kieran  Reilly

Energy Centre Limited

Representatives

Mr. Andy Walsh, KOD Lyons Solicitors

Mr. Eoin Kidd B.L., instructed by  JR Plunkett Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070529-001

03/04/2025

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

CA-00070533-001

03/04/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 6th February 2025. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as that of “Sales Assistant”. The Complainant was a permanent, full time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €900. The Complainant’s tenure with the Respondent was brief, with the same terminating on 12th March 2025 by way of resignation.  

On 3rd April 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that a consultant engaged by the Respondent harassed him, within the meaning of the Act, during a staff meeting. By response, the Respondent agreed with the Complainant’s version of events and accepted liability for the complaint of harassment as described.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 14th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint, the Respondent elected to call no witness evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that the second complaint was a duplicate of the first, and this matter was not pursued.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he is a member of the traveling community. He stated that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 6th February 2025 within the sales department. The Complainant asserts that he was a diligent and highly proficient employee, who exceeded the sales targets set by the Respondent during his brief tenure.

Approximately three weeks following the commencement of his employment, on 12th March 2025, the Respondent held a team meeting intended to encourage the sales team to increase productivity. During this meeting, the Complainant was presented as an exemplary employee whom colleagues should emulate. During the meeting, a senior member of the Respondent’s management advised those present that sales ought to increase because they possessed a quality product and were not "like a pack of knackers going door to door selling tarmac."

The Complainant submitted that this statement contains a term understood to be an exceptionally derogatory slur directed at members of the Traveller community. He further understood the comments to imply that a person would be hostile to a member of the Traveller community calling at their door. The Complainant stated he was proud of his professional achievements and was deeply unset and disappointed to encounter such an attitude in a supposedly professional environment.

Later that same day, the Complainant received a text message from the member of management in question. This message accepted that the comments were made and offered an apology in an apparently heartfelt manner. The member of management stated it was not his intention to cause offence and offered to meet with the Complainant to resolve the matter. While the Complainant appreciated the apology, he maintains that it did not mitigate the wrong or the harm caused by the comments themselves.

The Complainant stated that, in light of the Respondent's apparent attitude, he felt unable to continue his employment and terminated his position with immediate effect. He further submitted that he was clearly and vigorously harassed in the course of his duties by a member of management. He contends that this harassment was of a serious nature and undermined his faith in the Respondent's ability to provide a safe working environment.

By submission, the Respondent did not contest the factual matrix presented by the Complainant. Notwithstanding the same, it was clarified that the individual to whom the comments were attributed was not an employee of the Respondent but was a consultant invited to address the workforce. The Respondent accepted responsibility for these actions by virtue of the principle of vicarious liability as set out in the Act.

The Respondent acknowledges that while the comment was not intentionally directed at any specific member of the sales team, this did not serve to diminish the harm caused or the impact of the words upon the Complainant. The Respondent accepts that the comment was offensive, reckless, and unacceptable, and recognises that the Complainant was hurt and offended. In these circumstances, the Respondent accepted liability for these actions and conceded the allegation of harassment as presented.

Nevertheless, the Respondent respectfully submits that the following points should be considered in the assessment of quantum. Firstly, the Respondent submitted that the comment I question was made in the context of the consultant advising the sales team generally and was not directed at the Complainant in particular.  Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received a text message from the consultant on the date of the incident, in which the consultant apologised for any offence and took full responsibility for his words and the resulting harm. In addition to the same, the Respondent itself, as an organisation, apologised in an unreserved manner for the incident.  Finally, the Respondent submitted that it is committed to preventing a recurrence of any further incident and has agreed to undergo all recommended training and implement measures to ensure that all consultants, employees, management, and ownership understand their obligations under the Act.

In present case the case, there is no material dispute regarding the relevant factual matrix. In the regard, it is accepted that the Complainant is a member of the traveling community. It is further accepted that on 12th March 2025, a consultant engaged by the Respondent used an exceptionally derogatory term for members of the traveller community before the assembled sales team. The Complainant’s evidence was that this comment was deeply hurtful, offensive, and profoundly inappropriate within a professional environment.

In this regard, part one of Section 14(A) of the Act provides,

“…where...(a) an employee (in this section referred to as "the victim") is harassed… either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace") or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is…

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer, or

(ii) the victim’s employer, or

(iii) a client, customer or other business contact of the victim’s employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it, or

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)

(i) such harassment has occurred, and

(ii) either—

(I) the victim is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by reason of rejecting or accepting the harassment, or

(II) it could reasonably be anticipated that he or she would be so treated,

the harassment or sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the victim’s employer in relation to the victim’s conditions of employment.”

Part seven of that section goes on to provide,

" In this section—

(i)      references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

…such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material."

In the matter of Nail Zone Ltd v A Worker EDA 1023, the Labour Court held that,

"The essential characteristics of harassment within this statutory meaning is that the conduct is (a) unwanted and (b) that it has either the purpose or effect of violating a person 's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. This suggests a subjective test and if the impugned conduct had the effect referred to at paragraph (b) of the subsection, whether or not that effect was intended, and whether or not the conduct would have produced the same result in a person of greater fortitude than the Complainant, it constitutes harassment for the purpose of the Acts."

Section 6(2)(i) provides that “membership of the travelling community” is included in the grounds on which harassment is prohibited.

Regarding the instant matter, it is unambiguously the case that the use of the derogatory term by the consultant engaged by the Respondent was unwanted by the Complainant, was hostile toward the community of which the Complainant is a member and served to violate the Complainant’s dignity. In these circumstances, it is cleat that the test set out in authority cited above has been met, and the Complainant was harassed within the meaning of the Act. It is further noted that the Respondent accepted that these events constituted harassment for the purposes of the Act, and this element of the complaint was conceded.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Respondent put forward various points of mitigation. In this regard, it was submitted that the individual that issued the offensive remark apologised to the Complainant as soon as he became aware of the Complainant’s background and the offence caused. Additionally, the Respondent itself issued an unreserved apology, asserting that the comments were not representative of the Respondent as a whole and encouraging the Complainant to remain in his post.

Whilst these are pertinent matters when assessing quantum under the Employment Equality Act, they do not negate the simple and uncontested fact that the incident occurred. The Complainant is correct that the term used by the consultant was extremely derogatory, and such language is entirely unacceptable in the workplace. While it was welcome that both the consultant and the Respondent apologised for the incident, it is apparent that these apologies did not mitigate the harm caused to the Complainant by the remark itself. In this regard, it is understandable that the Complainant viewed such gestures as constituting a damage limitation exercise following the realisation of wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent.

Regarding quantum of compensation, a number of previous decisions of this forum provide some guidance. In the matter of Mark O’Connor -v- Ballymaley Store Limited ADJ-00052755, similarly derogatory comments were made in the presence of the Complainant, albeit on several occasions and without any form of contemporaneous apology being issued. A further distinguishing factor is that the Complainant in that matter alleged that his employer actively dismissed him based on discriminatory grounds. In that matter, the Complainant was award €13,000 or the equivalent of six months remuneration, in compensation.

In the matter of Raymond Nevin VS CPF (Profiles) Limited ADJ-00054368, derogatory language of a similar nature was used in the presence of the Complainant, again a member of the travelling community. In assessing quantum, the Adjudicator awarded the Complainant the sum of €7,500 in compensation.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the incident in question occurred or that the same constitutes harassment for the purposes of the impleaded Act. It is also abundantly clear that the harassment had a profoundly detrimental effect on the Complainant and that the same directly led to his election to resign his employment. As stated above, such conduct is clearly in breach of the Act and cannot be tolerated in any workplace.

Notwithstanding the same, and unlike the matters cited above, it is apparent that the Respondent took immediate, material steps to rectify the wrongdoing in question, accepted liability throughout this process and have unreservedly acknowledged the hurt and distress caused to the Complainant.

In these circumstances, I award the Complainant the sum of €15,000, the equivalent of approximately four months’ remuneration, in compensation. In addition to the foregoing, I direct the Respondent to engage in relevant training as regards to respect and dignity in the workplace, within two months of the date below.

CA-00070529-001 – Complaint under the Employment Equality Act

I find that the Complainant was harassed within the meaning of the Act, and his complaint is deemed to be well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €15,000, the equivalent of approximately four months’ remuneration, in compensation. In addition to the foregoing, I direct the Respondent to engage in relevant training as regards to respect and dignity in the workplace, within two months of the date below.

CA-00070533-001 – Complaint under the Employment Equality Act

This complaint was not pursued by the Complainant. In these circumstances, I find that the Respondent did not discriminate or harass the Complainant under this particular file reference.

Harassment, Travelling Community, Compensation, Quantum, Mitigation