Specsavers Letterkenny “discriminated against Muslim”

Grab All Association

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/specsavers-ordered-to-pay-12000-damages-to-muslim-worker-fired-day-after-manchester-terror-attack-37330053.html

The WRC seen no actual proof that her dismissal was due to the Manchester terror attacks. Nobody former boss/coworkers etc said anything to even suggest that was the reason she was fired

On the evening of May 23, Ms Ferrah said that she was asked to attend a meeting with the company directors where she was told “it’s not working out”, “you are not what we expected” and “you are not interactive enough on the shop floor”.

Maybe that’s the truth. I thought you could dismiss any employee within 12 months without having to give a reason. This ruling is absolutely ridiculous.

Emer O’Shea should be dismissed imho.

Saw.

Roger Hassenforder

You can't just sack someone, unless for gross misconduct. Even then there's procedures etc that have to be followed, afford an oppurtunity to address the issue, fair warnings etc.

Sounds like she got fcuked over in fairness.

CinemaGuy45

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You can't just sack someone, unless for gross misconduct. Even then there are procedures etc that have to be followed, afford an opportunity to address the issue, fair warnings etc.

Sounds like she got fcuked over in fairness.

Agreed in this case and €12,000 for being unfairly dismissed is not that much really some scammer slipping on the floor would cost a lot more.

Not much of a story really.

_Brian

This is the second such case I’ve seen reported recently.

Up to this point in Ireland employees could indeed essentially be let go for no reason. Once they were employed less than two years, definitely under one.

However, both of tue cases I’ve seen the employee took a case and won. It’s a game changer really and employers would now need to take heed of tue change.

Roger Hassenforder

_Brian wrote: »

This is the second such case I’ve seen reported recently.

Up to this point in Ireland employees could indeed essentially be let go for no reason. Once they were employed less than two years, definitely under one.

However, both of tue cases I’ve seen the employee took a case and won. It’s a game changer really and employers would now need to take heed of tue change.

Which point?

Atoms for Peace

If I was a employer no way in hell would I employ a "minority", way too many potential booby traps, pardon the pun.

Mrs OBumble

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You can't just sack someone, unless for gross misconduct. Even then there's procedures etc that have to be followed, afford an oppurtunity to address the issue, fair warnings etc.

Actually, while they're on probation, you can. Uunless you've said otherwise in your internal procedures. Which these guys did.

Also the fact that her uniform and namebadge were ordered one day, the next day the terror attacks happened, and the day after that they decide "it's not working out" seems more than a little bit of a co-incidence.

harr

I really don’t see how they came to the definite conclusion She was let go on religious grounds. This is only going to give employers reason not to hire certain people, why would they take the chance.
So it seems now employers cant let anyone go, so if they get stuck with a completely lazy fecker or someone totally unsuitable for the job they can’t do anything about it.
Can Any one tell me if this recommended pay out is legally binding?

Roger Hassenforder

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually, while they're on probation, you can. Uunless you've said otherwise in your internal procedures. Which these guys did.

Also the fact that her uniform and namebadge were ordered one day, the next day the terror attacks happened, and the day after that they decide "it's not working out" seems more than a little bit of a co-incidence.

If you're going to sack someone for a performance related issue, you need to have warned them their performance isnt up to scratch, and give them a chance to address the issue.


In finding that the firm did discriminate against Ms Ferrah, Ms O’Shea stated that it was accepted by the company that reviews of new employees would take place at the end of the first three months.

Ms O’Shea found that no records of any reviews have been presented to support the company’s contention of ongoing reviews and no records of any performance deficits on the part of Ms Ferrah were presented.

Your Face

Probably paid off as a bad debt.

Junkyard Tom

What a spectacle.

gandalf

This person was able to work for them for two years in the UK so I doubt very much the story that she didn't have the skillset for the job. This is a store that's part of a very high profile franchise so I would be very surprised if there wasn't procedures in place to deal with underperforming staff. It certainly looks like a kneejerk reaction to me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Brian wrote: »

This is the second such case I’ve seen reported recently.

Up to this point in Ireland employees could indeed essentially be let go for no reason. Once they were employed less than two years, definitely under one.

However, both of tue cases I’ve seen the employee took a case and won. It’s a game changer really and employers would now need to take heed of tue change.

Two years? No. That’s not true. No way could someone employed for one year and eleven months be just let go for no reason.

Roger Hassenforder

harr wrote: »

So it seems now employers cant let anyone go, so if they get stuck with a completely lazy fecker or someone totally unsuitable for the job they can’t do anything about it.

Yes they can.
You just have to follow a process.

CinemaGuy45

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What a spectacle.

Nobody saw it coming.

Roger Hassenforder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Two years? No. That’s not true. No way could someone employed for one year and eleven months be just let go for no reason.

I reckon he's talking about the statutory redundancy entitlement, for which you need 102 weeks to qualify.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I reckon he's talking about the statutory redundancy entitlement, for which you need 102 weeks to qualify.

Oh okay, something different entirely.

SeaFields

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh okay, something different entirely.

He's possibly thinking of the unfair dismissals act? As far as I remember that has a 12 month limit as to when it kicks in

DChancer

Grab All Association wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/specsavers-ordered-to-pay-12000-damages-to-muslim-worker-fired-day-after-manchester-terror-attack-37330053.html

The WRC seen no actual proof that her dismissal was due to the Manchester terror attacks. Nobody former boss/coworkers etc said anything to even suggest that was the reason she was fired

On the evening of May 23, Ms Ferrah said that she was asked to attend a meeting with the company directors where she was told “it’s not working out”, “you are not what we expected” and “you are not interactive enough on the shop floor”.

Maybe that’s the truth. I thought you could dismiss any employee within 12 months without having to give a reason. This ruling is absolutely ridiculous.

Emer O’Shea should be dismissed imho.

Delighted this Lady was successful in her claim and I hope it inspires others who are discrimated against to follow suit.

Alrigghtythen

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Nobody saw it coming.

They should have went to... Oh

Summer wind

Sounds very odd when she was good enough to work in another branch in England for 2 years. Her name badge and uniform being ordered the day before is very strange too. Fair play to her for pursuing it.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You can't just sack someone, unless for gross misconduct. Even then there's procedures etc that have to be followed, afford an oppurtunity to address the issue, fair warnings etc.

Sounds like she got fcuked over in fairness.

Yes if she was working for Specsavers Letterkenny over 12 months but she was only there 6 weeks. She worked in another branch previously in the UK but as Specsavers are a franchise based business, the contract here is completely separate.

What was the actual religious discrimination she was sacked on here though?? It seems to be as water tight as a sieve and will open a whole new pandora's box in employment law.

I had this mad notion that the burden of proof would be on the accuser or plaintiff in any case but it seems that the burden of proof was shifted to the employer which to me they gave a very legitimate reason why she wasnt suited to the role she was hired to perform. They clearly outlined this in the meeting on May 23rd of last year.

Summer wind

Summer wind wrote: »

Sounds very odd when she was good enough to work in another branch in England for 2 years. Her name badge and uniform being ordered the day before is very strange too. Fair play to her for pursuing it.

Yes but the head office could have removed her whereas there might be a designated person in the store who orders uniforms and badges that was not in a position of power to know that she was going to be fired.

Samuel T. Cogley

_Brian wrote: »

This is the second such case I’ve seen reported recently.

Up to this point in Ireland employees could indeed essentially be let go for no reason. Once they were employed less than two years, definitely under one.

However, both of tue cases I’ve seen the employee took a case and won. It’s a game changer really and employers would now need to take heed of tue change.

This was a common misconception. They never could be they just didn't have access to EAT. That's why the spurious discrimination has been used here.

This one is transparent.

Atoms for Peace

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

If I was a employer no way in hell would I employ a "minority", way too many potential booby traps, pardon the pun.

And you'll probably be screwed in that way soon as the mad liberals try and increasingly force quotas on companies and eliminate meritocracy where possible.

DChancer

DChancer wrote: »

Delighted this Lady was successful in her claim and I hope it inspires others who are discrimated against to follow suit.

In spite of the fact there seems to be very little evidence of actual religious discrimination??? Bad timing at most (given the manchester bombings were the day before but still what else is there really??

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes if she was working for Specsavers Letterkenny over 12 months but she was only there 6 weeks. She worked in another branch previously in the UK but as Specsavers are a franchise based business, the contract here is completely separate.

What was the actual religious discrimination she was sacked on here though?? It seems to be as water tight as a sieve and will open a whole new pandora's box in employment law.

I had this mad notion that the burden of proof would be on the accuser or plaintiff in any case but it seems that the burden of proof was shifted to the employer which to me they gave a very legitimate reason why she wasnt suited to the role she was hired to perform. They clearly outlined this in the meeting on May 23rd of last year.

There's a right way to dismiss someone.
And a stupid way.


From citizen.ie thing:

"Apart from a case involving constructive dismissal, a dismissal is presumed to be unfair unless your employer can show substantial grounds to justify it."

She said she was dismissed because she was Muslim.
They said it was performance related. Yet they couldn't back up their side with evidence of any review or performance management.
It's was a slam dunk case.

twowheelsonly

There was definitely 'something' at play here IMO. The bit that screwed the company though was not having any review records when they were supposedly depending on those to keep her on / let her go and to make their case.

Ms O’Shea found that no records of any reviews have been presented to support the company’s contention of ongoing reviews and no records of any performance deficits on the part of Ms Ferrah were presented.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There's a right way to dismiss someone.
And a stupid way.


From citizen.ie thing:

"Apart from a case involving constructive dismissal, a dismissal is presumed to be unfair unless your employer can show substantial grounds to justify it."

She said she was dismissed because she was Muslim.
They said it was performance related. Yet they couldn't back up their side with evidence of any review or performance management.
It's was a slam dunk case.

The unfair dismissals act is only activated after 1 year though. She argued under religious discrimination of which there seems to be absolutely not a shred of evidence of. The burden of proof should be on the accusor. She hadnt a shred of evidence to say that they discriminated against her religion but won anyway.....because we're sound like that in Ireland :rolleyes:

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

And you'll probably be screwed in that way soon as the mad liberals try and increasingly force quotas on companies and eliminate meritocracy where possible.

No, you'd be screwed immediately by existing anti-discrimination laws.

twowheelsonly

twowheelsonly wrote: »

There was definitely 'something' at play here IMO. The bit that screwed the company though was not having any review records when they were supposedly depending on those to keep her on / let her go and to make their case.

Possibly, but why should they have to keep records??? Surely its up to the accuser to provide concrete proof that she was discriminated against on her religious beliefs???

We can have no complaints when technology and robots eventually replace us at this rate.

AllForIt

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Nobody saw it coming.

Shortsighted ruling.

Nixonbot

Nixonbot wrote: »

No, you'd be screwed immediately by existing anti-discrimination laws.

But how do you actually prove discrimination unless you have something more concrete here??? I mean this lady was hired in spite of all the terrorism attacks all over Europe up to Manchester in 2017... why would relgious discrimination be a factor all of a sudden??? Could the reason be possibly that she was poor at her job and failed to interact properly with customers in a customer driven environment?

My theory is that our lawmakers are following the rest of Europe in trying to ensure they dont appear as being islamophobic or racist or whatever bullshít term the idiot left comes up with.

FingerDeKat

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

If I was a employer no way in hell would I employ a "minority",

And I wouldn't work for a company that thought that way...

TheValeyard

FingerDeKat wrote: »

And I wouldn't work for a company that thought that way...

Is it because you're a minority?

suicide_circus

always just let their probation run out, so much easier.

FingerDeKat

FingerDeKat wrote: »

And I wouldn't work for a company that thought that way...

Why would you hire a minority when the possibility of being sued for making what could be a strictly economic decision has now increased two fold ??? You could outline a legitimate reason for firing this person on non performance grounds and you have to document this but the person can take a case of unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination against you and wont have to provide anything??

twowheelsonly

Deleted User wrote: »

Possibly, but why should they have to keep records??? Surely its up to the accuser to provide concrete proof that she was discriminated against on her religious beliefs???

We can have no complaints when technology and robots eventually replace us at this rate.

If they're going to use it as a defence then it would be fairly prudent of them to do so would it not ?
From my reading of the article they didn't seem to have review records for anyone working there.



BTW, when I was involved in a business a few years ago the advice we got from our accountant (also a trained solicitor) for dealing with troublesome / weak / poor employees was just to fire them and deal with the fall-out afterwards. A small few will take it to the WRC but most will just walk away. His opinion was that it was cheaper and easier to just fire anyone that didn't make the grade rather than try to waste time and effort trying to manage them in the hope that things will work out. (Not making any connection with this case - just my own experience...)

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would you hire a minority when the possibility of being sued for making what could be a strictly economic decision has now increased two fold ???

Did you pull that figure out of your arse?

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The unfair dismissals act is only activated after 1 year though. She argued under religious discrimination of which there seems to be absolutely not a shred of evidence of. The burden of proof should be on the accusor. She hadnt a shred of evidence to say that they discriminated against her religion but won anyway.....because we're sound like that in Ireland :rolleyes:

Again, from citizen.ie:

"Normally you must have at least 12 months' continuous service with your employer in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. However there are important exceptions to this general rule..

If you have been employed for less than a year you may not be able to bring a claim under the unfair dismissals legislation, but you may be able make a complaint of discriminatory dismissal"


Maybe they had pinned too much on the <12 months service.

She didn't win because we're an easy touch. She won because they were Muppets. They hadnt a scintilla of evidence to support themselves.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would you hire a minority when the possibility of being sued for making what could be a strictly economic decision has now increased two fold ??? You could outline a legitimate reason for firing this person on non performance grounds and you have to document this but the person can take a case of unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination against you and wont have to provide anything??

I think i see your problem!!

These guys dont seem to have even had an Office Depot post-it note

twowheelsonly

twowheelsonly wrote: »

If they're going to use it as a defence then it would be fairly prudent of them to do so would it not ?
From my reading of the article they didn't seem to have review records for anyone working there.



BTW, when I was involved in a business a few years ago the advice we got from our accountant (also a trained solicitor) for dealing with troublesome / weak / poor employees was just to fire them and deal with the fall-out afterwards. A small few will take it to the WRC but most will just walk away. His opinion was that it was cheaper and easier to just fire anyone that didn't make the grade rather than try to waste time and effort trying to manage them in the hope that things will work out. (Not making any connection with this case - just my own experience...)

Im guessing that they never dreamed that she would take a case against them on those grounds so yes in that respect it was "shortsighted".... but still if you are trying to prove that you were discriminated against then you are surely using something more concrete then the fact it happened to be the day after the Manchester bombings??? Such as comments about a burka or hijab, or any other slight against Islamic faith or customs. There was nothing of the sort only pure conjecture here on behalf of the plaintiff

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think i see your problem!!

But surely Roger if you accuse someone of something such as religious discrimination, the burden of proof should be on you the accuser to provide cast iron proof??

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The unfair dismissals act is only activated after 1 year though. She argued under religious discrimination of which there seems to be absolutely not a shred of evidence of. The burden of proof should be on the accusor. She hadnt a shred of evidence to say that they discriminated against her religion but won anyway.....because we're sound like that in Ireland :rolleyes:

If they'd kept records of her performance they might have a bit of evidence to defend themselves with. In this case they couldn't give a single bit of evidence to back up their case.

Grayson

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Is it because you're a minority?

To be fair, who'd want to work for someone that refuses to hire the best person but will only hire white men? That's pretty much the definition of a racist employer.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

If they'd kept records of her performance they might have a bit of evidence to defend themselves with. In this case they couldn't give a single bit of evidence to back up their case.

And she needed no proof whatsoever to prove something as serious as religious discrimination which could damage their reputation???

I get the documentation thing and yes I agree they fell down on this part fair enough but at the same time, if you are going to accuse someone of something so serious then i think you should have more solid proof then what she provided.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair, who'd want to work for someone that refuses to hire the best person but will only hire white men? That's pretty much the definition of a racist employer.

Why does colour or religion even come into it??? How about tangible metrics such as achievements or experience???

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

If they'd kept records of her performance they might have a bit of evidence to defend themselves with. In this case they couldn't give a single bit of evidence to back up their case.

Again, i ask what exactly did she have to back up her claim???

Nixonbot

Nixonbot wrote: »

Did you pull that figure out of your arse?

The risk of hiring someone increases with this judgement. Its hard to say how much but i would definitely say many will cite this as a precedent. They'd be mad not to.