Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Shutterstock/Lichtmeister

Man 'isolated, bullied and harassed' by work managers awarded €20,000

The Employment Appeals Tribunal found that Daniel O’Reilly was constructively dismissed.

A MAN WHOSE health deteriorated as a result of his treatment at work was constructively dismissed, the Labour Court has ruled.

Daniel O’Reilly, a former technician with Swords-based facility management company Acuman, now in liquidation, resigned his position in October 2013 after being made to feel “isolated and under constant surveillance”.

His employment was described as uneventful until he was ordered to attend a four-and-a-half hour disciplinary meeting to discuss allegations including failure to complete timesheets and answer phone calls, as well as unsatisfactory work.

The claimant refuted the claims made against him, saying he had only ever been unable to answer works calls and texts when he was driving, and that he had never been made aware of any issue with his work.

The claimant also said he was not in a position to fully complete some timesheets as he had not been provided with a job number for certain tasks, and that he had explained this in a note attached to the relevant documents.

In evidence, O’Reilly said a manager at the disciplinary meeting had provided little information about the complaints and repeated accusations until the claimant agreed with him.

Allegations

Later that month, a line manager emailed the claimant to ask why he had been late on three consecutive days.

O’Reilly said he was delayed on only one of those days, when he had been caught in traffic on the way to meet a client, but that he had notified both the client and helpdesk of this in advance.

His line manager told him to make up the time by working through lunch, which he did, but he said he felt picked on and told the helpdesk that he would not be in the following day.

The same manager had previously told the claimant’s colleagues that he was “not committed to his job” as he could not work overtime hours after moving to Cork, where he lived on weekends.

A new member of staff was also told to watch him “like a hawk”, O’Reilly claimed.

Grievance

In a letter to the claimant the next week, the company’s HR manager apologised for the length of the disciplinary meeting and said no further action would be taken.

They agreed to both meet the claimant’s supervisor the following day to try to resolve their differences.

However, O’Reilly was unhappy with the outcome of their meeting and decided to instigate a formal grievance complaint.

After he was transferred to the company’s head office, where he said he was given only small jobs to do, the claimant took sick leave for work-related stress and subsequently decided to resign.

He felt the grievance procedure was a “whitewash” as no witnesses were called, but he continued to engage in the process even after his employment ended.

The managing director offered him his job back in February 2014, but the offer was rescinded after O’Reilly said he would only return to the position if his grievances were addressed.

Ruling 

In a recent judgement, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) said it accepted that the claimant’s treatment “caused a deterioration of his health which made it impossible for him to maintain his trust” in the company.

The EAT found that the claimant was “fully justified” in rejecting the second contract of employment offered to him.

It ruled that O’Reilly had been constructively dismissed and awarded him a total of €20,199.42 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

Read: Woman told company were looking for ‘Irish nationals only’ awarded €2,000

Read: How well do you know your employment rights?

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
26 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute in_zane_burger
    Favourite in_zane_burger
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:06 PM

    Can I have my money back now

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute padser123
    Favourite padser123
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:33 PM

    It’s like’…..burning your furniture – to keep warm!

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Roche
    Favourite Paul Roche
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 4:52 PM

    Why are PwC saying this instead of IBRC and NAMA?

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Philip
    Favourite Philip
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:20 PM

    As property prices start to rise nama , ibrc start to dump property

    Can someone explain why?

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dara O'Brien
    Favourite Dara O'Brien
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:56 PM

    Dumping loans philip, not property. They’re Dumping the loans as they’re non-performing and want to get them off the balance sheet.

    If they had the patience, they’d put arrangements in place to allow the properties to return to positive equity and then seek a sale, this recouping more of the tax payers money.

    Unfortunately, they’ll sell the loans for a discount and allow the new purchasers to do this and net a tidy profit.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Garry Coll
    Favourite Garry Coll
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:02 PM

    The article outlines that IBRC (IBROKE would probably be a better name) will offload € 15 billion in loans.
    Yet the linked article tells us that IBROKE have already offloaded 90% of its loanbook, € 19.8 billion out of € 21.7 billion leaving just € 1.9 billion on hand.
    This can only mean, if the previous article is correct, that it is NAMA that is offloading the majority of the loans.
    Why the subterfuge?
    Why make people think that this is some kind of joint enterprise when it is NAMA that is leading the charge?
    Have the shiny suit brigade from the canal something to hide?
    Given their obsession with secrecy it would not surprise me if they have, perhaps selling the loans to some preferred customer with an inside track at a serious discount.
    The way things go it will all be wrapped up before we know anything, plus ça change.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Irish Revolution
    Favourite Irish Revolution
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 2:58 PM

    Who in their right mind would buy this junk?

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Padraig McHale
    Favourite Padraig McHale
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:01 PM

    It might only be worth 30% of face value but if you buy it for 20% it’s a good deal. For the buyer anyway.

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony
    Favourite Tony
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:06 PM

    @ Irish Revolution

    The Banks?

    14
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Deirdre McDonnell
    Favourite Deirdre McDonnell
    Report
    Apr 3rd 2014, 2:42 AM

    Hedge funds bought it. They will now sell off all the ghost estates etc at a lower price so people that have houses for sale at the min will eventually have to sell for half or take them off the market.
    Fab house here in drogheda asking price €325. Hilarious. You could now nearly get a house for that on raglan road or ailsbury road!! So that house is realistically worth less than €150 really.
    People and notions ha

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Vanessa Doyle
    Favourite Vanessa Doyle
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 7:04 PM

    What about Bank of Scotland selling on my mortgage & others in their Irish portfolio to a company called Tanager Ltd.
    I’m in a tizzy all day because I don’t know what it means for us.

    3
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds