Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Specsavers Letterkenny “discriminated against Muslim”

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #34
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,321 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    CinemaGuy45 wrote: »
    Nobody saw it coming.

    Shortsighted ruling.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #36
    FingerDeKat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,295 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    FingerDeKat wrote: »
    And I wouldn't work for a company that thought that way...

    Is it because you're a minority?

    All Eyes On Rafah



  • Options
    #38
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


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


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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??


  • Options
    #40
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭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...)


  • Options
    #41
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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??


  • Options
    #46
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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??? :confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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???


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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???


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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??

    Not in unfair dismissal cases.
    The onus is on the employer to probe it was fair. I.e. they followed procedures etc.

    It makes sense.
    What if you were working for a company , and they just dismissed you with no warning citing "poor performance". But you were different from them, and something had just happened that drew attention to this difference, and you knew there was no performance issue.


    What would be interesting if she rocked up in a burka one day, and they had no policy on overt"religious" garments or symbols or covering your face..


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    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.


    yes im aware of the exceptions and the 12 month rule and i agree with the bit that i bolded and the lack of documentation...... but what exactly did this woman have to support her argument???? Not an iota...


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Not in unfair dismissal cases.
    The onus is on the employer to probe it was fair. I.e. they followed procedures etc.

    It makes sense.
    What if you were working for a company , and they just dismissed you with no warning citing "poor performance". But you were different from them, and something had just happened that drew attention to this difference, and you knew there was no performance issue.


    What would be interesting if she rocked up in a burka one day, and they had no policy on overt"religious" garments or symbols or covering your face..



    Yes I agree they were foolish on not documenting her performance but for me she should have something more concrete too. It just seems so imbalanced.


  • Options
    #55
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    harr wrote: »

    Can Any one tell me if this recommended pay out is legally binding?

    It can be overturned if the employer successfully appeals to the High Court. Which would probably cost a lot more then the value of the award.

    Alternatively they could just not pay it and see what happens next.


  • Options
    #56
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    there is a very simple method to reduce your employee absenteeism rate and reduce your risk of being sued by your employees...


  • Options
    #57
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again, i ask what exactly did she have to back up her claim???

    Why did you reply to the same post twice?

    She said it was because it was the day after the manchester attack and that there was literally no evidence to support any other reason. By itself it's not the strongest case.

    Their case was so weak that they couldn't disprove her. As someone mentioned, they didn't even have a postit note. There's zero evidence that she was doing bad or that they were even considering firing her until the day after the attack. They'd even ordered stuff for her. Their case was so pathetically weak and they couldn't supply any evidence, not one shread, to disprove her.


  • Options
    #58
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why does colour or religion even come into it??? How about tangible metrics such as achievements or experience???

    Err.... did you read my post? I said they should hire the best person for the job.

    Would it help if I used multiple quotation marks?


  • Options
    #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The fact that

    A: She was hired in the first place in spite of being Islamic and
    B: She was hired two weeks after a London terror attack in March/April 2017 and after all the attacks across Europe since Paris in 2015...

    Surely this debunks her whole argument that the Specsavers were prejudice in their decision to sack her???


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    Err.... did you read my post? I said they should hire the best person for the job.

    Would it help if I used multiple quotation marks?

    Yes I agree, but im very interested in your terminology here
    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.

    What if the best applicants in a given scenario for a specific position are mostly white men with the best CV's??? what then???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    Why did you reply to the same post twice?

    She said it was because it was the day after the manchester attack and that there was literally no evidence to support any other reason. By itself it's not the strongest case.

    Their case was so weak that they couldn't disprove her. As someone mentioned, they didn't even have a postit note. There's zero evidence that she was doing bad or that they were even considering firing her until the day after the attack. They'd even ordered stuff for her. Their case was so pathetically weak and they couldn't supply any evidence, not one shread, to disprove her.

    That bit i accept... but i still think her case was piss weak... Probably a whole different discussion though.


Advertisement