20,000 euros for workers who lost their job after a specialty complaint

An office worker who was reliable to file a complaint about the hotter after the merchant began to cut a hole on the roof above it with a corner grinder, received 20,000 euros in claims for workplace rights.

Cruinniú Bia Ltd, the operator of the former Heni Meat Factory store in Williams Gate, Golve, ordered the compensation to be compensated by Patricia Higgins to the employee for his health care and for a less favorable treatment as a non -working worker.

The Workplace Relationship Commission (WRC) reported that Ms. Higgins worked in a business for 14 years between 2008 and its redundancy in September 2022 on sales and administrative roles, and also worked as part -time since returning from maternal leave in 2017.

Legal submissions to WRC from Ms. Higgins, Alaster Perry and Ko attorneys, stated that after her original employer, Heaney Meats Ltd, “bought” BIA Krusynniu, new CEO, Allen Morris, asked her in April 2022.

Ms. Higgins refused the plan to increase her hours on the basis, which would mean lower every hour earnings and higher costs of child care, her lawyer said.

According to her, she said that after a full-time time, Mr. Morris described his salary-350 euros for a two-day week, like a “mad money” in one meeting. In May and June of that year, the tribunal heard the tribunal.

Ms. Higgins’s case was that she reported on May 30, 2022 in the office, found that she was nowhere to work, and she was sent to a table in a new office. An hour later, the merchant arrived there and told her that he cuts the hole on the roof to install light light, was said in the tribunal.

Since there is no other working space, and Mr. Morris did not tell her to move, she was left to put, WRC heard.

“(She) it turned out that he works under the roof where the merchant used a corner grinder to cut the roof above her table,” the legal documents of her lawyer reads.

The further proposal of the increasing hour was submitted by the firm and then abandoned Ms. Higgins in early June 2022. After that, her attorneys said: “Every morning after arrival, the complainant will have to wait for the table to be appointed.”

It lasted in July, the tribunal reported, leaving Ms. Higgins to move two screens, her computer, mouse and keyboard every time she was told to move the tables, it was filed.

She wrote a letter of the complaint to the incident with an angular grinder and claiming that her health and safety are dangerous. She also stated that she “mocked and persecuted” – agreeing that on July 19, that this issue should be investigated as an official complaint, the VRC reported.

Then, at the meeting on August 8, 2022, Ms. Higgins informed the staff manager Geraldin Ganth, who became superfluous, was stated in the tribunal.

WRC heard no mechanism of appeal was provided and that Ms Higgins said that she could not understand the sixth weekly in the office.

IBEC for the company stated that the business faced the closing to violate food safety practices after checking in 2020 and had to make significant changes. This meant that cost reduction measures and efficiency program, said business organization.

The company “denied that the complainant has threats” and took the position that Ms Higgins “offered options to avoid redundancy.”

But Judge Louise Boyle in her decision on this case wrote that the company showed a “complete disregard” to her obligation to ensure that Ms. Higgins has a safe work station and noted that her management “is constantly referring to her previous working conditions.”

“It seems … All the rates were disabled when (Ms. Higgins) filed a complaint about health, safety and well-being at work on the merchants who worked on it, had to be hotly hot and mocking claims for abuse and harassment,” Ms Boyle wrote.

Ms Boyle said that Ms. Higgins had been harmful when she was released and “was not excessively” if she did not file a complaint about security.

She awarded Ms. Higgins 15,000 euros of compensation for punishment in violation of the law on safety, health and well -being at work in 2005.

The judge also noted that when Ms Higgins rejected the proposals to see her full time at a lower rate of remuneration she told her that she needed to move from her usual table.

This would usually not be unjustified, wrote Ms. Boyle, except that it seemed to her that Ms. Higgins was the only one who had had to do with Hotdesk and that staff did not demand it.

The judge wrote that without the objective justification of Ms. Higgins is interpreted “other than a comparative full -time employee because of her employee status.”

She decided that it was a violation of the law on the protection of workers (part -time) in 2001 and awarded the employee another 5,000 euros.

The total amount awarded to Ms. Higgins in the case was 20,000 euros.