Specsavers Letterkenny “discriminated against Muslim”

Grab All Association · 18-09-2018 08:01PM #1

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.

18-09-2018 08:06PM

Saw.

Roger Hassenforder · 18-09-2018 08:07PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:12PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:12PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:13PM

_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 · 18-09-2018 08:18PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:22PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:28PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:29PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:29PM

Probably paid off as a bad debt.

Junkyard Tom · 18-09-2018 08:31PM

What a spectacle.

gandalf · 18-09-2018 08:32PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:32PM

_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 · 18-09-2018 08:33PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:33PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What a spectacle.

Nobody saw it coming.

Roger Hassenforder · 18-09-2018 08:36PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:46PM

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 · 18-09-2018 08:49PM

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 · 18-09-2018 09:55PM

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 · 18-09-2018 10:01PM

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Nobody saw it coming.

They should have went to... Oh

Summer wind · 18-09-2018 10:32PM

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.

19-09-2018 08:08PM

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.

19-09-2018 08:10PM

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 · 19-09-2018 08:12PM

_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.

19-09-2018 08:12PM

This one is transparent.

19-09-2018 08:12PM

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.

19-09-2018 08:15PM

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 · 19-09-2018 08:15PM

[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 · 19-09-2018 08:18PM

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.

19-09-2018 08:19PM

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:

Specsavers Letterkenny “discriminated against Muslim”

Comments