The Workplace Relations Commission has recommended \u20ac5,000 compensation for a barista who quit after being told she was \u201ctoo friendly\u201d with her customers.<\/p>\n
An adjudicator at the employment tribunal decided that her employer had created an \u201cunsavoury and undermining work environment\u201d for the worker.<\/p>\n
It was after she was \u201cambushed\u201d with \u201cserious accusations of misconduct\u201d in January 2025 and subjected to a \u201cpunitive\u201d transfer to another branch of the cafe, the adjudicator concluded.<\/p>\n
The non-binding recommendation was on foot of a complaint by the worker against her former employer under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The WRC hears such cases behind closed doors and publishes the decisions without disclosing the identities of the parties.<\/p>\n
The worker had been employed by the cafe for over two years when she returned from her Christmas holidays on Friday 27 December 2024 to be met by what she called a \u201chostile environment\u201d.<\/p>\n
She said her employer complained about the level of Christmas sales and addressed the worker and other staff \u201cin an unfriendly manner\u201d.<\/p>\n
The following Friday, 3 January 2025, the barista said her employer had her stay back after her shift, without notice, for a meeting at which she was \u201caccused of misconduct, including losing the business money\u201d.<\/p>\n
Among the allegations levelled at the barista were claims by the employer that there were insufficient Christmas sales; that the worker was undercharging and giving away free items, giving away too many loyalty stamps, and accepting gifts.<\/p>\n
She said she was told she was \u201ctoo friendly\u201d with her customers and that she was \u201cno longer welcome\u201d at the branch she had been working at.<\/p>\n
Her employer informed her that she would be transferred to another branch of the cafe and that she would be \u201cwatched closely\u201d there.<\/p>\n
The worker said that having arrived and set to work during her first shift at her new work site, her employer then demanded she stop work and join her for a \u201cprivate discussion\u201d.<\/p>\n
The worker refused, stating that she \u201cno longer felt comfortable engaging alone\u201d after their meeting the Friday before, she said. She told the employer she was prepared to engage either \u201cin writing or on neutral ground with an agreed witness\u201d, she said.<\/p>\n
As she continued her work, steaming milk, she said the employer \u201cpulled [my] arm down\u201d, she said. She told the employer \u201cnot to touch\u201d her and repeated that she would not participate in the meeting.<\/p>\n
Her employer then said she was \u201cthe boss\u201d, that the worker could not refuse the meeting, and threatened to report her to the garda\u00ed, the worker said.<\/p>\n
She said it was a \u201chumiliating and frightening\u201d incident and that she had been \u201cintimidated, bullied and physically threatened in front of colleagues and customers\u201d.<\/p>\n
The employer\u2019s position was that it had concerns about what it classified as \u201cstaff theft\u201d, which was defined in its company handbook as \u201ccharging customers less than the listed price, giving away food or drink without payment, providing unauthorised discounts, or permitting staff or customers to receive items for free\u201d.<\/p>\n
Annalee Brazel of Peninsula Business Services, appearing for the employer, submitted that the business had \u201cinformally reminded\u201d the worker of this after \u201cobservations that she was undercharging and giving away items\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ms Brazel said the employer was engaged in a only an \u201cinitial investigation\u201d and \u201cfact-finding exercise\u201d on 3 January 2025, when she submitted that the worker \u201cadmitted that she had on occasion charged customers less than the listed price, sold products at reduced prices near the end of their shelf life, and given away leftover items for free\u201d.<\/p>\n
The transfer to another branch \u201cwas not a punishment\u201d but a \u201ctemporary step\u201d while the matter was being investigated, and that it was agreed with the worker.<\/p>\n
The company position was that it wished to continue the \u201congoing fact-finding process\u201d on 7 January as \u201cpart of a legitimate and appropriate process\u201d.<\/p>\n
The employer denied to the WRC that any \u201cbullying or intimidation\u201d took place on that occasion and further denied grabbing the worker by the arm.<\/p>\n
Adjudicator Tom O\u2019Driscoll noted that the worker had been called in to meetings without advance notice of the issues on the agenda on two dates \u2013 and without any chance to prepare or arrange for representation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese meetings were initiated by management in circumstances where serious allegations of misconduct were made. The worker was, in effect, ambushed with accusations and denied the safeguards which are fundamental to a fair investigation process,\u201d he found.<\/p>\n
He said he was satisfied the transfer to another branch \u201camounted to a disciplinary sanction\u201d and was done without \u201cany proper or impartial investigation\u201d, or following company processes.<\/p>\n
He added that he preferred the worker\u2019s account of what happened on 7 January over the employer\u2019s and concluded that the employer\u2019s actions \u201cconstituted unfair treatment\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe combination of repeated confrontations without notice and the imposition of a punitive transfer created an unsavoury and undermining work environment for the worker,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n
Noting that the worker quit the job shortly afterwards, he concluded that the job was made \u201cuntenable\u201d for her as a consequence of the treatment she received.<\/p>\n
Mr O\u2019Driscoll recommended the employer pay compensation of \u20ac5,000 \u201cin recognition of the distress and loss\u201d caused to the barista.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Workplace Relations Commission has recommended \u20ac5,000 compensation for a barista who quit after being told she was…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":73963,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[79,18,19,17,81],"class_list":{"0":"post-73962","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-eire","10":"tag-ie","11":"tag-ireland","12":"tag-workplace-relations-commission"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73962","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73962\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73963"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}