In the world of work, communication is key. However, there are times when messages can get crossed, and accidents can occur. In the case of one bartender, a simple slip-up resulted in a windfall of €10,000. The bartender in question received a voice message by accident from their supervisor, which led to that employee being terminated from their position. As a result, the bartender was awarded compensation for wrongful dismissal. This story is a cautionary tale for those in positions of power, and a reminder that every interaction in the workplace carries consequences.
A bartender has been awarded €10,000 for a discriminatory constructive dismissal after receiving an accidental voice note from her supervisor ordering her termination due to her anxiety disorder. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) upheld the complaint made under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against the bartender’s former employer, a hospitality group employing around 100 staff across 12 businesses. The commission made a finding of discriminatory constructive dismissal against the employer.
In the voice note presented as evidence to the WRC, the supervisor was heard saying, “‘[She] is f***ing killed with her nerves so she’s over there in a panic attack now…I have to get rid of her now. F***ing hates (sic) doing it but [my manager] said: ‘Look, she has to go’.” The bartender, identified as Ms. Z, had requested that information about her anxiety disorder be kept private. In evidence, Ms. Z stated that the incident caused her “stress and humiliation”, leaving her with no option but to quit.
The employer denied the dismissal, claiming that the manager mentioned in the voice note did not have the authority to terminate employment, and there was no intention to dismiss the complainant. The bartender finished her shift on August 13th, 2021, informing her supervisor that she was feeling unwell but agreed to open up the bar the next morning. However, Ms. Z claimed that when she went in the following day, she contacted Ms. B by text informing her that she felt an anxiety or panic attack coming on.
While waiting to be relieved, Ms. Z received the voice note from her supervisor and had just finished listening to it when her supervisor arrived. The supervisor asked for a “private word” and then told her: “You’re sick, you’re not suited to the job” – or “words to that effect”, Ms. Z told the tribunal. The bar manager referred to in the voice note, identified only as Mr. A, said he found out from Ms. B that she had sent the voice note “in error” and told the bartender to “take whatever time she needed to get better”.
In September 2021, Ms. Z met with Mr. A, who denied saying what had been attributed to him in the voice note. Mr. A told her: “This isn’t good for the company. I never told her to say this”. Ms. Z did subsequently receive messages requesting her return to work, but she felt that “the damage was done” due to the voice note.
The owner of the hospitality firm said he had not seen the details of the voice note until the complainant’s submissions to the WRC. Counsel for the hospitality group, Paul Comiskey O’Keeffe BL, argued that the claim for constructive dismissal was “unsustainable on the facts alleged” and that the discrimination claim had been “contrived” by the complainant after she quit in December 2021. He stated, “No decision to terminate, nor termination, occurred as a matter of fact.”
In her decision, adjudicating officer Gaye Cunningham wrote that the “tone and language” of the voice note would “reasonably be considered to be deeply offensive”. Cunningham added, “There were clear indications in its wording that the intention was to dismiss Ms. Z”. The adjudicating officer accepted that Ms. Z’s anxiety disorder made it “not possible” for her to make use of workplace grievance procedures and criticized the employer for “little follow-up” despite its claims that Ms. Z would be “welcome” back to work. Cunningham ordered the company to pay Ms. Z €10,000 in compensation for the effects of discrimination.
Gareth Hayden, barrister for Ms. Z, argued that a person with her anxiety disorder “could well be placing themselves at risk of deterioration in their condition” by going back to work with a “clear” intention to dismiss them because of their disability. He claimed that this intention was “clearly the subject of discussion between fellow employees”. In the end, the WRC found in Ms. Z’s favor, highlighting the importance of employers understanding their responsibilities towards employees with disabilities, including those with anxiety disorders.
