A local newspaper has failed to convince a tribunal that its offer to get a receptionist a baseball bat to deal with a homeless man who repeatedly came to their office intoxicated was a "metaphor" – and has been ordered to pay her €45,000, after sacking her for making a formal health and safety complaint.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was told that after staff at the 'Killarney Advertiser' asked its managing director to sign off on installing a gate as a safety measure, their boss said he would get the receptionist a baseball bat to keep at her desk and called a plan to install a security gate a "waste of time".
However, the managing director said his comment was "a metaphor" to say that the company "would go to any lengths to protect staff".
The tribunal has now ordered the publisher of the freesheet newspaper to pay compensation worth close to two years’ gross wages to the receptionist, Laura O’Regan, after ruling she had been sacked for making a protected disclosure in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The decision was issued to the parties more than five years on from Ms O’Regan’s dismissal on September 2019, and was published today by the WRC.
Ms O’Regan’s evidence to the tribunal was that a man who was "living rough" nearby started coming to the newspaper’s office starting in May 2019 – and would stare at her and leave her feeling "generally intimidated".
Her barrister, Aoife Lynch BL, appearing instructed by Maurice Coffey & Co, submitted that the man, identified only as "Mr J" in the tribunal decision, had been told by both the sales manager and the paper’s editor that he was not to come to the office. However, Mr J’s visits continued into the autumn of 2019 at a rate of about twice a week, it was further submitted.
In August and September 2019, Mr J’s behaviour "became worse" and he was "verbally abusive" towards her – occasionally using "vile and offensive language and indicated he wanted a girlfriend", Ms O’Regan said in her evidence.
Ms O’Regan said that after making the editor of the title aware of the seriousness of the situation, there was a discussion about installing a gate at the front desk to control access – but although measurements were taken, the gate was never installed.
Mr J came to the office again on 18 September 2019 and was abusive towards her again – leaving her so afraid she called the gardaí, and later sent an email to the company’s designated health and safety contact, the complainant stated.
The WRC heard disputed accounts of a series of meetings which followed.
Ms O’Regan said that the day after her complaint she was called into a "back office" meeting with the editor, the manager, and the newspaper’s proprietor, Cormac Casey. She said they were "angry with her".
The complainant’s evidence was that Mr Casey said there had been "no need" for her to put her concerns in writing and that he would get her "a baseball bat to put behind the counter".
She was dismissed the following Friday when the general manager handed her a letter and told her she "no longer worked there", citing "performance issues".
Ms O’Regan said that when she asked the manager if it was "about the health and safety report" he "just looked at the floor".
In an email about the gate issue, which was opened to the WRC, Mr Casey wrote that he saw "no requirement" to install it. "I am paying [for] the man-hours and distraction on this matter… this process has completely undermined my authority and unnecessarily exposed me," he added.
Gavin Cumiskey of Peninsula Business Services, who appeared for the company when the tribunal held hearings on the case in 2022, submitted: "The complainant was dismissed based on the overall needs of the business [and] the direct feedback of her line manager, who said that [Ms O'Regan] would not be able to cover [the line manager's] role during maternity leave, declining sales, and sales activity."
He said the decision predated the health and safety complaint. Ms O’Regan’s evidence was that her employer never made an issue of her performance prior to the day of her dismissal.
Mr Casey, the managing director, said he only became aware of the problem with Mr J when he was asked to sign off on installing a door in the office.
He said that his comment about putting a baseball bat at the reception desk was "a metaphor" to say that the company "would go to any lengths to protect staff".
His evidence was that he "did not reprimand the complainant, but he was annoyed about the way management had dealt with the issue".
Adjudicator Maria Kelly found Ms O’Regan’s safety complaint had amounted to a protected disclosure, as she had been fearful for the safety of herself and her colleagues and had a "legitimate expectation" that the control gate which had been discussed would be installed.
Because of that, despite having less than the usual one year’s service, the complainant came under the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act.
Ms Kelly wrote that the tone of Mr Casey’s email showed he was "angry" and was "concerned about his authority" and about "being exposed" on a health and safety issue. The adjudicator said it was "not credible" that Mr Casey "was not angry with the complainant as well".
She added that Ms O’Regan’s evidence on the baseball bat remark was "more credible" than Mr Casey’s suggestion that it was a "metaphor".
"Mr Casey was clearly annoyed at the potential exposure on a health and safety issue, annoyed at the proposed solution, and the cost and handling of the issue by managers. One week later the complainant was dismissed," Ms Kelly wrote.
She concluded Ms O’Regan’s dismissal was "directly connected" with her safety report, a protected disclosure, and ordered the publisher to pay €45,000 in compensation – an award worth nearly 98 weeks’ gross wages for Ms O’Regan.
