Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vedrana Miskic

Aspenvale Limited

Representatives

Represented herself

Represented by the owner

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-00074760-001

25/08/2025

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

CA-00074760-006

25/08/2025

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

CA-00074760-007

25/08/2025

In advance of the hearing on April 1st 2026, both parties provided submissions in support of their respective positions.  In breach of s.3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the complainant claims that she didn’t receive a statement of her core terms and conditions of employment within five days of commencing work with the respondent.  She also claims that she was harassed when her employer compared her accent to an actress, and that she was dismissed because she objected to the discriminatory behaviour of the owner.  The respondent asserts that the complainant was responsible for producing statements of core terms of employment for staff and they deny the allegations of discrimination.

In her submission, the complainant said that she was contacted by the owner, Mr Takacs, at the end of February 2025 and invited to an interview for a job as a manager in the Cake Café.  At the time, Mr Takacs was in negotiations with the previous owner to take over the café.  Before she started in the job, the complainant said that Mr Takacs was in touch with her on WhatsApp and asked her for her opinions and ideas about certain aspects of the business. 

On April 4th 2025, the complainant said that Mr Takacs told her that the current manager had resigned and that he would take over the business in two weeks.  In anticipation of commencing work with the respondent, the complainant said that she gave in her notice in the job she was in.  She started working in the Cake Café as a manager on April 25th 2025.  On arrival, the complainant said that no suppliers had been set up and she had to open accounts with suppliers.  While that process was underway, the complainant said that she purchased products on her way to work every day for use in the café.  There were no food hygiene procedures documented and she wrote the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) procedures so that the business could trade legally.

During her first few days in the job, the complainant said that she did a lot of cleaning and she introduced herself to the staff.  Mr Takacs had suggested that the staff weren’t suitable, but she said that they were fine.  She said that he was making life uncomfortable for them because he was always in the café and they felt that they were being monitored.

Three days into her employment, the complainant said that a female employee resigned.  In her letter of resignation, this employee said that she was resigning because she didn’t feel comfortable with the change of ownership, the move from weekly to monthly pay and what she claimed were racist and sexist remarks made by Mr Takacs.  The complainant said that Mr Takacs asked her to reply to this employee and to refer to the “false accusations made against the owner.”  A copy of the draft email was submitted in evidence, which shows that the reference to racist and sexist remarks has been deleted.  The complainant said that she didn’t send the email that Mr Takacs drafted.  The complainant said that Mr Takacs made remarks about not having black people working in the café and he instructed staff to remove pride flags that had been hung up by the previous owner.

The complainant said that Mr Takacs asked her to remove the employee who resigned on April 28th from the staff WhatsApp group.  In her submission, she produced a copy of a WhatsApp message from Mr Takacs asking her to remove this employee from the group.  The complainant said that he later told the employee that he didn’t know she had been removed from the group.

In her evidence, the complainant said that a camera was installed in the café and, one morning, when she was at work with a colleague, she heard Mr Takacs saying “good morning.”  His voice came from a speaker in the camera apparatus.  When they were looking around for the voice, the complainant said that Mr Takacs could be heard laughing.  The complainant said that the camera in the café had a real-time audio facility and that the owner could see and listen to staff and customers on his mobile phone.

The complainant provided a copy of a WhatsApp message she sent to Mr Takacs in which she said that the staff are not happy about the presence of an audio recording camera.  Mr Takacs replied and said that he had switched off the voice mode and that he had used it because he trusted the complainant and her colleague.

In her submission, the complainant provided a copy of an email from the assistant manager who resigned on September 11th 2025, almost four months after she was herself dismissed.  In her email, this employee said that she knew that the camera recorded sound because she observed the owner with his phone looking at and listening to an incident that occurred in the café.

On Saturday, May 17th, the complainant arrived at work and was informed by Mr Takacs that the employee who resigned on April 28th was upset because she hadn’t received her wages.  The complainant said that Mr Takacs accused her of not telling this employee that wages were now being paid monthly, although staff had been paid weekly by the previous owner.  Mr Takacs said that he had told the complainant to let this former employee know that she would be paid at the end of May.  This is evidenced by a copy of a message that the employee sent to the complainant.  The complainant told Mr Takacs that he didn’t give her this instruction.  He insisted that he had told her and said that she must have forgotten.  The complainant said that she was frustrated by this accusation.  She also said that she couldn’t explain to the employee why she wasn’t paid at the same time as everyone else.

When he took over the business, the complainant said that Mr Takacs told them that wages would be paid monthly, but that, as a favour, he would pay wages every two weeks.  The complainant said that she was paid every two weeks, although she didn’t get a payslip until October 2025, five months after her dismissal, when an inspector from the WRC investigated employment practices in the respondent’s business.  This October payslip, which only records holiday pay, is dated May 30th 2025, indicating that the money was due to the complainant on that date. 

On May 21st, the complainant said that Mr Takacs called her to one side and told her that the cost of running the business was too high and that he couldn’t afford to keep her.  The complainant said that she reminded Mr Takacs that she left a job to work for him, but he suggested that she wasn’t working when she started in the café.  She reminded him that he offered her the job on February 27th and that she had worked her notice in her previous job and that she started with him two months later.

Referring to her allegation that Mr Takacs was racist, she said that he referred to her as the actress, Sophia Vergara, because of her accent.  She said that he made fun of her accent.

After work on the day she was informed that she was dismissed, the complainant said that she was suffering from stress and she could barely make it to her doctor.  She was then out sick but, a couple of days later, she returned to the café to collect some clothes and a food mixer that she had brought from home because she said that the equipment in the café was inadequate.  She said that because she was so stressed out, she brought a friend with her for support.  She asked a member of staff to witness that she was taking her clothes and food mixer.

In the documents she submitted for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of an email from Mr Takacs dated May 21st 2025.  In paragraphs two, three and four of a letter comprising five paragraphs, Mr Takacs wrote:

“I am writing to confirm our recent conversation regarding the termination of your employment with thecakecafé (sic), effective Wednesday, May 28th 2025.  This reflects a one week notice period from today, 21st May 2025 and is in accordance with your terms of employment and applicable statutory obligations.

This decision has been made after careful consideration and with the long term needs of the business in mind.  Please know that this is not a reflection on you personally.  You have been a pleasure to work with and your positive attitude and enthusiasm have been greatly appreciated.

You now hold managerial experience and I would be very happy to provide a strong reference to support your future career opportunities.”

In a submission he sent to the WRC on November 10th 2025, Mr Takacs said that he is the business owner who took over the Cake Café in April / May 2025.  He said that he inherited significant administrative and operational gaps from the previous owners, including the failure to issue contracts to employees, absence of formal procedures and non-compliance with some statutory requirements.  Since he took over, Mr Takacs said that he has worked to regularise employment and operational matters including the issuing of contracts and the implementation of policies, improving payroll compliance and co-operating with the WRC’s inspection service.

Mr Takacs said that the complainant was recruited following an interview and personal references from her sister, who was a friend.  She was employed subject to six months’ probation, but her employment ended after four weeks.

Alleged Deletion of WhatsApp Voice Messages

The complainant alleges that the respondent deleted certain WhatsApp voice messages while also asserting that she can provide those same messages on a USB device.  The complainant does not particularise which messages were deleted, when any deletion occurred, by whom, from which device or account, or how she retains copies of material she claims was deleted.  The respondent denies deleting any messages.

The complainant further alleges that the messages contained “very nasty things about employees” but does not allege that any such remarks were directed at her personally, nor does she identify any remark linking the alleged messages to discrimination against her on a protected ground.

If audio files are relied upon, the respondent requests that they be produced in full, in original format, with metadata and capable of independent verification.

Allegations of Racist or Discriminatory Remarks

The respondent categorically denies making racist remarks or discriminatory comments concerning members of the LGBT+ community.  No specific words, dates, locations, witnesses, or contemporaneous documents are identified to support these allegations.  The complainant does not identify any act, decision or dismissal affecting her employment that was taken on discriminatory grounds.  Third-party commentary, opinion, or workplace gossip does not constitute evidence of statements made by the respondent.

At the hearing, Mr Takacs said that he never made any discriminatory remarks about black people.  In his submission, he said that the old pride flags were removed during a deep cleaning process after he took over.  He said that they were greasy and covered with flies.  He said that cleaned and framed replacements were installed later.

Resignation of an Employee on April 26th 2025

This employee worked under the new ownership for two days only during the handover period.  The respondent later became aware of a version of resignation correspondence containing additional allegations not included in the original email.  The respondent does not know when those additions were made and how they were introduced 48 hours after the employee’s resignation.  The complainant was not the author of the resignation and did not receive it in an authorised managerial capacity.

The respondent’s sole concern at the time this employee resigned was to determine whether any misunderstanding had occurred during a period of transition.  The respondent did not request the complainant to make any false statement and the employee’s resignation does not relate to any act, decision, or dismissal affecting the complainant’s employment.

CCTV Context

CCTV was installed for security reasons following incidents of vandalism, drug related activity, and unauthorised access to the premises.  The café closes at 17:00 and is contractually restricted from operating beyond 19:00.  Following staff concerns, the microphone function was disabled, and the cameras were switched off during operational hours.   Gardaí reviewed CCTV footage following a reported theft and raised no concerns regarding its operation or signage.  A WRC inspector raised no issue regarding CCTV or signage.  CCTV matters are unrelated to the complainant’s resignation or the ending of her employment.

Mr Takacs said that, although microphones were installed in the CCTV system, they were not used.  He said that the use of CCTV is recorded in the staff handbook and on signage in the café.

Events of 17th and 21st May 2025

Mr Takacs claims that, in a conversation with the complainant on May 17th 2025, she raised her voice and said, “If you want me to leave, I’ll leave.”  Her last day at work was May 21st, and she called in sick the following day.  On May 23rd, while she was on sick leave, Mr Takacs said that the complainant called to the café and, without authorisation, went to the back room with a former employee.  Mr Takacs said that the complainant’s termination of her employment was confirmed on May 28th, when she denied her earlier resignation.

On 17th May 2025, a confrontation arose following an employee not being informed of her payment schedule.  The respondent addressed the matter with the complainant in her managerial capacity.  On 21st May 2025, a meeting took place to clarify whether the complainant’s words on 17th May amounted to a resignation.  During that meeting, the discussion escalated and the complainant stated words to the effect that she would bring the respondent to the WRC and would contact staff to obtain statements.  These matters are relevant to the breakdown of trust between the parties.

Mr Takacs’ position is that he considers the complainant’s words spoken on May 17th as a resignation.  He said that, if I, the adjudicator in this matter, decide that she didn’t resign, there were legitimate grounds for dismissing her; raising her voice publicly, refusing to communicate appropriately, threatening to damage the business and coming into the premises while on sick leave.  Mr Takacs said that the complainant was still on probation and the respondent was entitled to terminate her employment if necessary.

Mr Takacs said that the complainant was paid all the wages she was owed, including €220.48 in holiday pay.  He said that he maintained a record of his WhatsApp conversations with her, which show that their conversations were professional and polite.  He said that full chat logs are stored and can be verified by an expert.

Conclusion of the Respondent’s Submission

In September and October 2025, Mr Takacs said that his business cooperated fully with a WRC inspection.  He said that payroll issues were corrected and the necessary documents were provided to the inspector.

When the complainant commenced in her role, Mr Takacs said that she prepared “five day statements” for all employees.  When the inspector visited the company in September 2025, Mr Takacs said that some improvements were required.  He said that he then downloaded five day statements and full statements of terms and conditions as recommended by the inspector and these are now issued to employees.

Mr Takacs said that the complainant has provided no evidence to support her allegation of discriminatory behaviour, with no details of dates, words or witnesses.  He said that his decision to hire the complainant having been friends with her sister is indicative of his knowledge of her identity and characteristics.

Concluding his submission, Mr Takacs said that the complainant has provided no prima facie evidence to support her allegations and that the respondent acted lawfully, professionally, and cooperated fully with the WRC.  He asserted that there is no factual or legal basis for any award.

I have reflected on the submissions of the parties and the evidence of the complainant and the respondent at the hearing and it seems to me that the Cake Café was a disorganised place to work.  My impression is that the person with the most relevant experience and knowledge of running a café was the complainant and that, from day one, she faced a challenge to provide a minimum standard of professional service and to maintain reasonable relations with staff.   I find that the complainant worked hard and did her absolute best to manage the owner’s chaotic approach to the business and his cavalier attitude to the most basic of regulations such as HACCP and the use of CCTV. 

In this environment, in her role as a manager, the complainant struggled to ensure that staff received their entitlements to breaks and that they were paid on time.  She tried to explain to Mr Takacs that his constant presence in the café, while he wasn’t cooking, cleaning or serving customers, made the staff feel that they were under constant monitoring.  Many of the employees who transferred from the former owner left, and this caused issues for the remaining employees who had to fill the gaps.  Mr Takacs’ use of AI in his initial submission to the WRC leads me to suspect that the complainant was correct when she said that he manipulated WhatsApp messages and correspondence to delete comments that he didn’t like.

CA-00074760-001:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

This complaint about discrimination concerns the complainant’s claims that Mr Takacs made remarks about not hiring black people, that he removed the Pride flags hung up by the previous owner and that he referred to her as Sophia Vergara because of her accent.  There is no evidence that Mr Takacs made the remarks about not hiring black people.  He did not deny that he referred to the complainant as Sophia Vergara and he said that he removed the Pride flags because they were dirty.

I found the complainant to be a credible witness and I regret to say that I found that Mr Takacs was less so.  It is my view that the complainant has established that, on the basic facts, her accent was ridiculed and that, on this basis, she was harassed.  I find that the evidence she presented to support her allegations that the respondent discriminated against black people and members of the LGBTQ community is not sufficient for me to uphold this aspect of her complaint.

CA-00074760-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 was amended by the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018.  The amended provisions require an employer, within five days of an employee’s start date, to provide them with a statement containing certain core information regarding hours of work, pay, the type of contract on offer and the name and address of the employer.  The respondent provided no evidence that the complainant was provided with such a statement.  Mr Takacs said that he resolved this issue for all his employees only after an inspection by the WRC in September 2025.

Having identified the breach of section 3 of the 1994 Act, in accordance with section 7(2)(d), I am required to order the employer to pay compensation of “such an amount (if any) as is just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration…”  Taking account of the circumstances outlined by the complainant, it is my view that compensation equivalent to four weeks’ pay is just and equitable.   

CA-00074760-007:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

I am satisfied that the complainant did not resign, but that she was dismissed by the respondent on May 21st 2025, as is evidenced by the letter he sent her on that day giving her one week’s notice.  I find that her dismissal was unreasonable and unfair, and that the explanation given, that the business could no longer afford her, was implausible.

Under this heading on her complaint form, the complainant claimed that she was dismissed for a discriminatory reason or for opposing discrimination.  The only evidence of discrimination that I have identified is the respondent’s belittling of the complainant’s accent by comparing her to a Columbian actress and his removal of the Pride flags.  I am not satisfied that the complainant was dismissed because she complained about these matters.

CA-00074760-001:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

I have concluded that the complainant was harassed about her accent and I decide therefore, that this complaint is well founded.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €3,762, equivalent to four weeks’ pay.

CA-00074760-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I have concluded that the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a statement of her core terms and conditions of employment within five days of her commencing in her role.  I decide therefore, that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €3,762, equivalent to four weeks’ pay.

CA-00074760-007:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

The complainant has not established that, on the basic facts, she was dismissed for discriminatory reasons or for opposing discrimination.  For this reason, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

The total award of €7,524, is for breaches of statutory rights and, in accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

Dismissal, discrimination