Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ece  Toprak

La Selva Limited                                     t/a Gringos Mexican Restaurant And Bar

Representatives

Setanta Landers                                             Setanta Solicitors

Kevin Callan                                                 Callan HR Consultants

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-00073203-001

07/07/2025

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

CA-00073203-002

07/07/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all the relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski  -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 7th of July 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

The Complainant had full legal representation at the hearing. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s own evidence, the Complainant agreed to swear make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant brought one witness to provide evidence in support of her case. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 28th of January 2026.  The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which reads:

Unfair dismissal , harassment, victimisation

•              Ms Toprak began her role as in Gringos Mexican Restaurant on 5 December 2023 as the assistant manager.

•              Her hourly salary is €16.00 per hour.  She did not receive a contract of employment.

•              She was promised a salary increase by Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director in September 2024 and February 2025 but this was not honoured.

•              At Christmas in 2024 she received a €400 gift card and thank you note.

•              In or around 3 March 2025 March Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director confided to the Complainant that he was a difficult person to work with but asked that she stay on.

•              In or around 11 March 2025 the Complainant attended Restaurant Awards Ceremony in Kildare with Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director and his wife. 

•              In or around 26 March 26 2025 the Complainant sought a meeting to discuss the restaurant infrastructure maintenance. She was promised a review within two weeks. This did not occur.

•              In or around 28 April 2025 the Complainant disclosed she was suffering from depression to Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director

•              From 30 April 30 2025 Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director became providing negative commentary and feed back to the Complainant around

o             That she was not effective

o             That she did not have a strong enough personality

o             That he was looking for a replacement for her.

o             That she contributed to a “bad atmosphere”.

o             He needed someone who could help him to achieve his goals

•              On 1 May 2025 Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director texted the Complainant that he was monitoring her from cameras in the restaurant. 

•              On 3 May 2025 he verbally assaulted the Complainant. 

•              On 4 May 2025 Mr Shujan Bhuiyan Director called the Complainant to a meeting and said that he was not happy with the Complainant, and she should find another job. the Complainant asked if he wished to fire her. He said that he and his wife did not feel comfortable with her.

•              On 9 May 2025 the Complainant was sent home early and removed from the full-time roster.

•              She sent a sick certificate from 12th May 2025 for acute medical illness to 18th of May 2025. This was sent to her employer.

•              This was extended to 25th May for anxiety. This was sent to her employer.

•              Her treating psychiatrist prescribed medication due to acute stress reaction due to mobbing. (Mobbing is a form of group bullying. In a workplace setting, it involves systematic behaviour from towards an individual. The intent is to harm that individual physically or emotionally, until they quit.)

•              On 15th May 2025 the Complainant was asked to return her keys to the restaurant.

•              On 19th May 2025 the Complainant was removed from the restaurant whatsapp group.

•              On 20th May the Complainant received a final payment inclusive of holidays.

•              From the Complainant’s Revenue record she was removed as an employee with effected from 20 May 2025.

It is clear from any objective reading of the above that the Complainant was bullied into illness and then removed from the workplace.

We are instructed to open a claim for discriminatory dismissal in the WRC and you can expect proceedings imminently.

Harassment

Secondly, and most concerningly the Complainant is alarmed by communications which has occurred in the last week between Mr Shujan Bhuiyan’s wife Aiste who attended on the Complainant’s residence and sought the phone number of the Complainant’s flatmate.

He was then contacted to ask about her movements.

On Tuesday 27 May 2025 this gentleman was texted by Ms Bhuiyan enquiring if he had a room to rent enquiring as to the Complainant’s accommodation status.

It is noted that in the course of the hearing much of that which is contained in this account was found to be factually inaccurate, if not completely incorrect. In particular, it is noted that the Complainant never provided any medical evidence to substantiate her claim.

On the day of the hearing, I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. This was medical evidence which hitherto had not been available to the Respondent or to the WRC. The Complainant acknowledged it was late. Objection was raised to the late introduction. The evidence adduced by the Complainant and her witness was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that her Employer reacted badly when she notified him that she was a manic depressive and that he immediately set about pushing her out of his employment. The employment relationship did end within two weeks of the purported disclosure.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof (prima facie) which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by a HR group known as Callan HR. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated January 20th 2026. I have additionally heard from the owner/ Manager of the Respondent restaurant. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witness was cross examined bythe Complainant representative.

The Respondent rejects that there has been act of Discrimination in circumstances where there was no awareness of a disability. The Respondent further asserts that the relationship broke down by reason of the attitude of the Complainant.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully listened to and considered the evidence adduced by the parties herein. The Complainant came to work with Mr. SB at his new restaurant in Drogheda. She had been a friend of the family and was happy to come and work for people she knew and liked. The Complainant travelled from Turkey to take up this role. The employment commenced in and around the December of 2023.

Given the reliance placed on the Complainant, it is surprising that her salary was as low as outlined in the Contract of Employment. Mr SB agrees with my description of the Complainant as his second in command while she was working for him. To be fair to the Employer, he did increase the hourly rate of pay from €14.00 per hour to €16.00 per hour in recognition of the Complainant’s hard work. The Complainant felt that as she was acting in the role of Assistant Manager she should be getting paid even more. As against this, SB did state that this was a new business finding its feet and he had to be cautious in terms of outlay.

Things initially worked out well for the parties. The Complainant was a very responsible person, and SB did rely heavily on her demonstrated capabilities. The Complainant lived very close to the premises and was one of the key holders.

The first year seems to have been uneventful. The Complainant worked hard, and I got the impression that she was popular with the rest of the staff. It is for this reason that it is now hard for me to reconcile how the parties are so divided on the facts that led up to the end of this employment relationship.

I am inclined to accept the Complainant’s evidence that in the course of an ordinary conversation with SB conducted at the end of March of 2025, the Complainant did raise the issue of an increase to her hourly rate of pay. The issue was raised by her in the course of a more general conversation concerning maintenance issues in the restaurant, and I accept the Complainant’s evidence that her Employer rebuffed this request with some vague promise that he would look into it in due course. I know that the Respondent witness -SB- absolutely rejects that any such conversation took place at that time. To my mind, however, it is the obvious and sensible reason as to why the Complainant’s attitude to her Employer as well as her work ethic visibly changed in the weeks immediately thereafter.

As I noted, there is so little commonality between the two versions of events, that I have to attach considerable weight to those matters upon which the parties have agreed. Both parties agreed that the Complainant’s performance was lack lustre for the weeks after the conversation at the end of March and the meeting they had on the 30th of April which said meeting was called by the Respondent as a matter of some urgency.

I am satisfied that the Respondent called this meeting for the express purpose of providing negative commentary on the Complainant’s recent performance. Both parties tend to agree that this was the case though SB has modified it somewhat stating:

Mr B raised concerns about Ms Toprak’s limited engagement on the restaurant floor…

On balance, I am inclined to accept that the Complainant pushed back against her Employer’s criticism of her recent work by citing mental health issues she says she was having. I have to be cognisant of the fact that the Complainant had never ever suggested that she had suffered with a disability before this time. I believe she raised the issue in a difficult situation where she was being challenged and as a defence against her Employer’s allegations.

Before me at the WRC the Complainant has set up a case of having some sort of long-diagnosed Bipolar disorder, also known as manic depressive illness or manic depression. This isa mental health condition characterized by significant mood swings, including manic (or hypomanic) episodes and depressive episodes. The Complainant says in her evidence that she told her Employer that her recent performance in the workplace was below par because she had been experiencing one of these depressive episodes.

It is not clear to me just how detailed the Complainant was when she was confiding in her Employer on this date. In her complaint form she said that she told her boss that she was suffering from depression and in the Complainant’s submission she has said she told him that she was suffering from depression. Before me she said that she had told her Employer that she was a manic depressive. This is not language that could get lost in translation or be easily forgotten and I am more inclined to believe that the Complainant said that she was depressed.

Of course the Respondent denies that the Complainant said anything whatsoever about a mental condition and he asserts that she simply said that she was tired.

I find it hard to believe the Respondent when he says that, having given the Complainant a formal dressing down as regards her performance (and it was quite a nasty dressing down), he then left their conversation satisfied with her explanation of being tired. He concedes he did not ask anything about what was making her tired and nor did he ask what he (as a good employer) could do to help? He asserts he simply left the conversation at that – though he did make a written note of the conversation at the time. On balance, I found the Respondent not to be credible in the course of his evidence. I am finding as a matter of fact that the Complainant put the Respondent on notice of the fact that she was going through a depressive episode when he was highly critical of her performance on the 30th of April 2025. I am not convinced that the Complainant laid out the seriousness of her condition, but I am satisfied that she referenced it.

I am further satisfied that the details fell on deaf ears, and that the Employer was in no way moved by the Complainant’s admission as to a disability.

Within a few days of this conversation, on the 5th of May or thereabouts, the Respondent readily admits that he had a conversation with the Complainant wherein he states (in his submission):

He explained to the Complainant that the restaurant was too much for her and that she would suit a hotel environment which would be slower.

In effect the Complainant was, by now, being managed out the door. It is quite shocking that after a year and a half of excellent service that the Complainant was being forced out the door within a few days of making an admission of having depression.

I am satisfied that the next few days in the workplace were made more difficult for the Complainant as the Employer escalated his mishandling of the situation. I accept, for example, that the Employer humiliated the Complainant when he berated her about the holding of a meal meant for a customer who was late. This is something that would never have happened before the April 30th conversation was had. The Complainant left the workplace on the 9th of May, never to return. She was quickly removed from roster and the what’s app group.

I am satisfied that the Complainant has made out a case of Prima Facie discrimination and has been subjected to a constructive discriminatory dismissal as well as further victimisation.

In assessing compensation, I have to be aware of the fact that whilst I am on balance accepting the Complainant referenced a disability there was and indeed there is very little to back it up. The documentation which was provided was provided late and was, at best, weak.

The Complainant waived the need to get into the evidence concerning the activities of the Respondent’s wife after the employment was over.

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

CA-00073203-001 – The complaint herein is well founded. I find the Complainant was forced to resign her employment by reason of the discrimination exercised by her Employer and I make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination in the amount of €2,500.00

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

CA-00073203-002 -  The complaint herein is well founded. I find the Complainant was victimised and by reason of having a disability and I make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination in the amount of €2,500.00