Are employees too well protected in Ireland?

Temptamperu · 24-01-2012 10:19PM

Far too protected, thats why most people are doing three peoples work for the same pay as one person :rolleyes:

Defiler Of The Coffin · 24-01-2012 10:25PM

It's hard to strike a balance. There are plenty of cowboy employers out there who overwork or underpay their staff. In a healthy labour market with a normal level of movement employees wouldn't have to put up with an unprofessional employer for too long. However activity is sluggish in the labour market these days so employees in general are more eager to hold onto their jobs. This shouldn't mean employers can ride roughshod over them however. When I worked in Tesco the shop steward was an important part of employee's relations with management. Employees don't always know their rights and some companies will take advantage of people. This is what the unions should be concentrating on instead of dictating policy to government.

Anyways...

Some posters have said the EAT can lean too heavily in employee's favour. Have to agree with this, johnr1's post reminded me of this article in the indo from a few years ago...

AN ITALIAN takeaway worker who smoked on the premises, was habitually late and gave away free food to customers has been awarded €3000 in compensation after being unfairly dismissed.
Pasquale Marcello of Loughnamona Close in Leixlip, Co Kildare was awarded the money because his employer unintentionally failed to follow correct procedures when sacking him.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal heard that Mr Marcello started working for Maria Frasca at the San Remo takeaway in Ashbourne, Co Meath in February 2001 where his brother worked as a manager.

In June 2004 "problems" started and Ms Frasca felt the takeaway was not as clean as she would have liked and the staff were not performing well.

Mr Marcello was given "loads of warnings" about refusing to wear a uniform, about smoking without washing his hands afterwards and about smoking on the premises. He refused to wear a hat, was often late and gave free food to customers which ate into profits.

He was given a final warning by his employer.

In February of 2005, he attempted to tell a delivery man not to impose a €5 charge for the service and Ms Fresca then sacked him, giving him two weeks of wages.

She told the tribunal she did not know about the correct procedures to follow when dealing with disciplinary matters and had employed Mr Marcello "from the goodness of my heart".

In his defence Mr Marcello claimed Ms Fresca was "fed up" with him speaking Italian and that he had not received a written contract. He accepted that problems had been discussed, and that he "knew the rules".

But because Ms Fresca "unintentionally" failed to follow correct procedures the tribunal found Mr Marcello had been unfairly dismissed.

Seems an incompetent employee got to pocket a few grand because of a technicality.

Regarding the case mentioned in the OP, the man in question really should have known better but it did seem like a genuine mistake.

Motorist · 25-01-2012 12:39AM

This seems to be the formula.

1. You engage in gross misconduct and are dismissed.

2. Submit appeal to EAT where you invent some bogus reason such as you forgot what you were doing was wrong or you didn't know stealing was wrong .

3. Collect your reward of somewhere between €5000 - €20,000 from your ex employer.

Eoin · 25-01-2012 12:58AM

Motorist wrote: »

This seems to be the formula.

1. You engage in gross misconduct and are dismissed.

2. Submit appeal to EAT where you invent some bogus reason such as you forgot what you were doing was wrong or you didn't know stealing was wrong .

3. Collect your reward of somewhere between €5000 - €20,000 from your ex employer.

I think the majority of successful appeals are because the company screwed up and didn't follow their own procedures, or didn't have solid enough procedures in place to protect themselves.

When it comes to the EAT, the burden of proof is on the employer (apart from claims of constructive dismissal), so they really need to have everything documented and done properly. That's not such a bad thing.

Overheal · 25-01-2012 03:36AM

jackal wrote: »

These stories always make for great headlines, but inevitably you find that some hot-headed manager mangled one of the steps in the companies disciplinary procedure. Thats game over right there.

Other cases often involve companies that have not clearly defined their disciplinary procedure.

If a company has a disciplinary procedure and follows it to the letter, then there will not be a problem. The management need to tread very carefully in this area to ensure a clean, legal and fair dismissal to even the most blatantly obvious chancer.

Yeah but we're getting into Letter vs. Spirit of the Law. It's clear that some employees are abusing the lettering of it. Yet when an employee is on a wrong end of the letter of the law - and not the spirit of it - then do we see a bunch of public outcry, and even the odd overturn in the courts.

Nodin · 25-01-2012 05:20AM

Motorist wrote: »

This seems to be the formula.

1. You engage in gross misconduct and are dismissed.

2. Submit appeal to EAT where you invent some bogus reason such as you forgot what you were doing was wrong or you didn't know stealing was wrong .

................

...none of which seems to have happened in nearly all of the examples you've given, or have been accepted by the tribunal as a reason to find in the employee's favour.

Joe10000 · 25-01-2012 08:17AM

There was one in the paper on Sunday about a fella who called in sick and then took part in a post office robbery and was caught.

The guards confiscated his two blackberry's and his laptop.

Turned up for work 3 days later and work asked for their equipment back (they had heard by now) and when he couldn't produce it they sacked him.

He won 25,000 at the tribunal.

Joke.

sasser · 25-01-2012 03:47PM

Joe10000 wrote: »

There was one in the paper on Sunday about a fella who called in sick and then took part in a post office robbery and was caught.

The guards confiscated his two blackberry's and his laptop.

Turned up for work 3 days later and work asked for their equipment back (they had heard by now) and when he couldn't produce it they sacked him.

He won 25,000 at the tribunal.

Joke.

Slightly different story reported below, was definitely treated unfairly.

A SALESMAN who was unfairly sacked after he was arrested by gardai for questioning in relation to a major robbery has been awarded €25,000.

Anthony O'Brien, of Great Western Villas, Phibsborough, was awarded the money after taking a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Although arrested in relation to the robbery, he was later released without charge and gardai took no further action.

Mr O'Brien began working for Abbey Seals Limited, which distributes metal seals, as a salesman in the spring of 2002. The family-owned firm has since gone into liquidation.

A garda from the National Bureau of Investigation gave evidence that Mr O'Brien was arrested at his home on February 27, 2009, and was detained at a city centre station until almost midnight on March 2.

RECORD

He was seen by a doctor three times during his detention.

Abbey Seals Ltd claimed its office manager took a call from Mr O'Brien on the morning of March 2 to say he was sick and not able to report for work.

That afternoon a garda detective visited the company's offices and sought information on Mr O'Brien's whereabouts on February 26 and 27.

The detective was told that Mr O'Brien was in work on both days.

The company's sales director said Mr O'Brien was a good employee with no disciplinary record.

He was told by the office manager that Mr O'Brien had phoned in sick when the garda said he was in custody. When the director put this to Mr O'Brien, the worker said he had nothing to do with the crime.

The company sent Mr O'Brien a letter on March 5 in which it reminded him of the firm's sick leave policy and that he would have to provide a medical certificate for his absence.

It also looked for his laptop and mobile phone to be returned while he was absent from the company -- but these items had been seized by gardai.

LEAVE

The sales director conceded to the tribunal that the return of the computer and phones from an employee while they were absent was an unusual requirement and not been applied to employees before.

Mr O'Brien told the tribunal in evidence that by the time of his release from custody he felt "shaken up" and opted to take a number of days leave from March 3. He told the sales manager he would be taking some leave that was owed to him and denied seeking sick leave.

However he said he knew by this stage that the company was aware of his arrest.

The tribunal found that Mr O'Brien had been unfairly dismissed and decided he did nothing that would amount to misconduct or justify dismissal.

However it said his failure to be forthcoming with the truth from the outset may have fed the company's suspicions.

Motorist · 25-01-2012 06:42PM

Joe10000 wrote: »

He won 25,000 at the tribunal.

Joke.

Not surprised :rolleyes:

Fighting Irish · 25-01-2012 07:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, he was clearly embarked on a major criminal enterprise.

:rolleyes:

So he can steal whatever as long as you think it's ok? What if the shop was just a corner shop, and not tesco?

Fighting Irish · 25-01-2012 07:15PM

Cian92 wrote: »

The man forgot to pay for a bottle of ribena and a snack, I doubt that is too serious. He was also being treated differnetly because he had HIV.

The reward seems fair to me.

lol

Hobbes · 25-01-2012 07:24PM

Motorist wrote: »

Seems he was let go for what is considered a very serious offence in many companies.

No.. he was let go because they showed Tesco fired him because of his HIV status.

Corruptedmorals · 25-01-2012 08:37PM

sasser wrote: »

Where does it say that he won on discrimination? The article does say that the employee was never informed the meeting in which he was fired was an inquiry. This points to failure of company to follow company procedure. I would be surprised at any large company that has on the spot firing as company policy. Usually suspension with pay for gross misconduct while am investigation is caried out. Employee would be formally invited to meeting. If company policy is followed and there has been gross misconduct then the firring would be valid.

It pretty much is the sticking point in the case- he is claiming his HIV status was used against him. If it wasn't, the case would have been reported as an open-and-shut 'employee stole store food. claims meant to pay later' which in fairness, is the oldest trick in the book. I didn't mean instant dismissal as in straight away right that second, aplogies, that was misleading. I meant it in the sense of it doesn't follow ordinary disclipinary- there are no warnings for gross misconduct. I have witnessed a very similar situation to this, somebody caught eating store food- they were suspended straight away, the obvious CCTV evidence was reviewed, and they were called back within a few hours and fired. No days-waiting business.

mikemac1 · 25-01-2012 08:43PM

Fairly easy to get cut in work, when I was barman I was getting cut plently of times with glass and scrapes from trips and falls. Meh, it happens

Ok a security guard won't be dealing with glass but they will be hauling ne'er do wells and drunks outside.
Someone bites or hits him with a key and now we have blood

I don't know, maybe I'll be called prejudiced but the HIV is a concern.

Security is not an office job sitting at a desk all day, there is a physical activity involved here and injuries and cuts happen
So will he ever be given a security job every again by anyone? I don't think so now the info is out there. Good for him he has some compo to tide him over while he has to find a new job

HavingCrack · 25-01-2012 09:07PM

Is it not possible to dismiss or make redundant someone due to health risks?

I'm curious about this. Surely someone with HIV should not be working as a security guard regardless due to the risk to the health of the public etc.?

Predalien · 25-01-2012 09:10PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

Is it not possible to dismiss or make redundant someone due to health risks?

I'm curious about this. Surely someone with HIV should not be working as a security guard regardless due to the risk to the health of the public etc.?

Surely you're not serious?

Predalien · 25-01-2012 09:15PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Fairly easy to get cut in work, when I was barman I was getting cut plently of times with glass and scrapes from trips and falls. Meh, it happens

Ok a security guard won't be dealing with glass but they will be hauling ne'er do wells and drunks outside.
Someone bites or hits him with a key and now we have blood

I don't know, maybe I'll be called prejudiced but the HIV is a concern.

Security is not an office job sitting at a desk all day, there is a physical activity involved here and injuries and cuts happen
So will he ever be given a security job every again by anyone? I don't think so now the info is out there. Good for him he has some compo to tide him over while he has to find a new job

He'd have to be cut, then bleed into the open wound of another person, are people seriously still this ignorant about HIV?

Eoin · 25-01-2012 09:26PM

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

It pretty much is the sticking point in the case- he is claiming his HIV status was used against him.

Hobbes wrote:

No.. he was let go because they showed Tesco fired him because of his HIV status.

The article doesn't really say that's what the ruling was though. The article said that:

the tribunal inquiry awarded him €32,000 in compensation after finding the evidence showed there had been no breaches of discipline or complaints against the man during his employment.

It also pointed out he was not informed that an initial meeting with the store manager was in fact an inquiry.

That points to procedures not being followed correctly, not that he was discriminated against because of his condition.

As I said earlier, the burden of proof is on the employer. If the employer hasn't followed the right steps in dismissing someone, then the odds are that they'll be ruled against. If you took out the fact he had HIV, then he would still most likely have won.

Motorist · 25-01-2012 09:54PM

It seems you can make up some story - you had depression, anxiety, post- traumatic stress disorder, HIV, AIDS, flu - anything will do, as long as you have some excuse you can claim you are being discriminated against when you are fired for stealing and happily await your huge compensation package. I'd absolutely dread to be an employer who had to genuinely sack a member of the travelling community of someone in a wheelchair

figarofigaro · 25-01-2012 09:56PM

So what, Tesco can well afford it.

Motorist · 25-01-2012 10:01PM

figarofigaro wrote: »

So what, Tesco can well afford it.

It's just the customer that ends up paying for it all anyway.

mongoman · 25-01-2012 10:07PM

Permanent staff in the Public Sector are virtually untouchable. Once people get their permanency the foot comes off the gas. The private sector on the other hand is like a Turkey shoot.

Acacia · 25-01-2012 10:14PM

Nope. Some of the sh1te friends/family have to put up with in jobs (particularly the low-skilled ones) is horrendous.

Eoin · 25-01-2012 10:32PM

mongoman wrote: »

The private sector on the other hand is like a Turkey shoot.

It's actually quite hard to dismiss someone who isn't performing too well but not misbehaving (and isn't on probation).

@motorist - read some of the posts again - without reading the full judgement there's very little to suggest he won his case on discrimination grounds. Tesco screwed up.

HavingCrack · 25-01-2012 10:42PM

Predalien wrote: »

Surely you're not serious?

I am actually, I know a good few people who have worked doors and security etc. and sustained minor cuts and bruises and two guys who were both attacked with broken glasses. Now as you said, the chances of the blood infecting someone else is low but in a job where a fair amount of physicality with some very aggressive people is the norm I suspect it becomes substantially higher.

Predalien · 25-01-2012 10:58PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

I am actually, I know a good few people who have worked doors and security etc. and sustained minor cuts and bruises and two guys who were both attacked with broken glasses. Now as you said, the chances of the blood infecting someone else is low but in a job where a fair amount of physicality with some very aggressive people is the norm I suspect it becomes substantially higher.

The risk isn't low, it's almost non-existant. There is absolutely no reason a person with HIV should not work as a security guard. There is no reason a person with HIV shouldn't work in a hospital, school, shop, bar, factory...

opinion guy · 25-01-2012 11:48PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Unions in Ireland are weak, when's the last time you saw a full strike?
Unions need to be stronger, not weaker.
Leadership out of touch and wasting members money on expensive hotel banquets, strike pay funds dangerously low and too much fighting with others can crying foul about "poaching"
But all that can be improved on

There is a difference between a union being weak and a union selling out. Frankly, I think we've passed the time for unions. They just become self-serving entities and screw over their own members.

The IBEC press releases must be getting through to a lot of boards posters.
They're as much a lobby group with an agenda as any union

Its pure frace that this union for small businesses even exists.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Is it not possible to dismiss or make redundant someone due to health risks?

I'm curious about this. Surely someone with HIV should not be working as a security guard regardless due to the risk to the health of the public etc.?

Are you not aware that mothers with HIV can deliver their babies without passing the infection on to them - not only is there blood but the baby has lived inside her for 9 months.

Motorist wrote: »

you had depression, anxiety, post- traumatic stress disorder, HIV,

Are you saying he made up his HIV ?

Nodin · 26-01-2012 07:22AM

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So he can steal whatever as long as you think it's ok? What if the shop was just a corner shop, and not tesco?

......it's fairly obvious what I was getting at, in the context of the incident.

Nodin · 26-01-2012 07:24AM

Motorist wrote: »

It seems you can make up some story - you had depression, anxiety, post- traumatic stress disorder, HIV, AIDS, flu - anything will do, as long as you have some excuse you can claim you are being discriminated against when you are fired for stealing and happily await your huge compensation package. I'd absolutely dread to be an employer who had to genuinely sack a member of the travelling community of someone in a wheelchair

That's a lovely little rant that has nothing to do with the vast majority of cases raised. Specifically it has fuck all to do with the case of the security guard, as has been pointed out numerous times.

You seem to ignore all information that contradicts your pre-established narrative.

later12 · 26-01-2012 07:46AM

Here's my experience with the labour court.

Last Summer, good friend and former flatmate of mine got into difficulty with his employer not paying his wages. He was due about 2 months wages, and holiday pay as well as the reimbursement of expenses. Overall, the figure came to over €4,000.

One day, out of the blue, while in a meeting with some clients, he gets a text message to saying the company is on the brink, and the upshot is that he can forget about his €4,000. The employer has no intention of liquidating her company, she's just refusing to pay.

So eventually we help him take his case to the labour court. It takes about 4 weeks before it's heard... in this time my friend has no job and no income whatever; as he is an Australian, he's not entitled to any welfare help because the employer had paid no tax and no PRSI.
Anyway, the employer doesn't bother turning up at the hearing and the guy hearing his case tells us "you're wasting your time with this process, if she refuses to pay, there is *not a single thing* the labour court, or the circuit court can do to force the payment of wages, because the director has just walked away from her company and started a new one".

This case didn't even effect me personally, but it affected me indirectly through my friend by having to watch him go through all of that tedious, longwinded, process and then be told by the labour court that he was wasting his time. The whole process, from start (approaching the labour court) to finish (application for an order of the circuit court) took 17 weeks, and absolutely nothing has been achieved.

This was a straightforward non payment of wages issue. The employer did not have to bother turning up at the labour court, did not have to bother turning up at the circuit court, and did not have to bother obeying the judgements of either the circuit or the labour court. My friend has returned home without seeing any of his wages.

I find it extremely frustrating and bewildering that such a basic protection as safeguarding the employees wages cannot be met by the labour court in respect of a company which has no interest in interacting with it.

Are employees too well protected in Ireland?

Comments