A casino croupier who said her manager told her "you have a really nice ass, but this is off the record" when she complained about the level of discrimination and abuse at work has been awarded €7,000 in compensation, with the Workplace Relations Commission finding her employer had failed to examine the "toxic levels of misogyny and harassment" being claimed.
Having heard that the casino had also disciplined the croupier for being "rude" to a poker player who had threatened to run her down in his car, the tribunal also found the "clear implication" was that the employer believed that the complainant "somehow deserved to have her life threatened".
Ruling on a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by Iulia Andreea Zamfir against Automatic Amusements Ltd, trading as D1 Club casino, a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator called it an "incredibly difficult workplace" which failed to protect female staff from "sustained stereotyping and belittlement".
The WRC heard Ms Zamfir, who joined the casino in 2018 as a croupier with eight years' experience under her belt, wrote to a co-owner of the business in August 2023 stating that she had been threatened by a poker player on August 6th.
An issue arose when the man went to take a sum of cash from the table to play roulette, the WRC heard.
"He lost the plot and threatened to wait for me outside and run me over with his car," the worker wrote in her email.
She went on to state that she had been "sexually harassed, verbally abused [and] discriminated against" in the course of her employment to the point that she was attending therapy.
"Every time I go to [my manager] to tell him about the abuse that I'm dealing with, I've been shown the door. If I'm not happy, [I’m] told to remember that [I] don't work in a church," the worker said.
Quoting her manager, her email continued: "Andreea, stop complaining about customers having dirty thoughts about you. You have a really nice ass, but this is off the record," she said in the August 17th email to one of the casino’s owners.
"l can't handle the abuse anymore," she wrote.
Adjudicator Penelope McGrath said she accepted the complainant’s position that the informal investigation which followed was "perfunctory" and that there was "no root and branch examination of the toxic levels of misogyny and harassment being claimed".
The management had "forced" some "half-hearted apologies" from staff after Ms Zamfir complained of "extremely serious instances of sexual harassment, abusive behaviour and discrimination" on 17 August 2023, the WRC heard.
At that point, the casino’s management launched a disciplinary investigation against Ms Zamfir on the basis of two statements taken from other staff during the sexual harassment probe.
Ms McGrath said the incident with the poker player threatening to "drive over" [Ms Zamfir’s] legs" on August 6th was "somehow turned on its head and becomes an allegation of the complainant having been unprofessional and rude to the same customer".
"To my mind the clear implication of this is that the employer held the view that the complainant somehow deserved to have her life threatened," Ms McGrath wrote. There had been no customer complaint, she added.
The worker was served with a final written warning on foot of a finding that she "did behave inappropriately" towards the poker player, she noted. The sanction was confirmed on appeal, it was further noted.
Ms McGrath wrote that the casino was a difficult work environment which was busiest "late at night… after the pubs have closed". Patrons arriving "quite drunk" and continuing to drink, with some also losing money gambling.
"There is no doubt that tensions can run high and there is an expectation on all staff to be on the lookout for trouble and emotional overreaction," she wrote.
She noted the evidence of the complainant’s manager, Mr MZ, on the working atmosphere, and that he accepted that he "often" told Ms Zamfir and his other staff that they "didn’t work in a church".
Resilience was expected of the staff, she wrote, but Ms Zamfir had resilience and was not "overly prim or demure", she wrote.
She wrote that an employer could not assume a worker could be left to their own devices or "abdicate its responsibilities" or duty of care.
"This was an incredibly difficult workplace which failed to protect female employees from sustained stereotyping and belittlement. Customers and indeed male colleagues were ambivalent to the casual sexism that pervaded," Ms McGrath wrote.
"There were no protection measures in place and no zero-tolerance policy implemented. Complaints were laughed off. Women on the floor were left to their own devices, were expected to show resilience and basically take it," Ms McGrath continued.
She ordered the company to give all its employees sexual harassment training; bring in a dignity at work protocol, and to engage a third-party investigator for all future sexual harassment complaints.
Addressing a complaint on equal pay discrimination, Ms McGrath wrote that the evidence presented by the company about the responsibilities of an Irish male croupier, Mr TL, was "weak" and that the man himself had not testified himself.
The only "concrete evidence" before her was a list of names and positions of staff, which described both Ms Zamfir and Mr TL as "dealers".
"I am satisfied that they were of an equal ranking and doing the same work in the workplace. TL was getting paid slightly more than the complainant without any reason given," she wrote.
Noting that she had jurisdiction to award up to three years worth of pay arrears in the case of the failure to pay equally, Ms McGrath ordered the Automatic Amusements to pay Ms Zamfir €7,000 in compensation.
Ms Zamfir was represented by Harriet Burgess BL, appearing instructed by Tracy Brady of McGuigan Solicitors. Human resources consultant James McEvoy of Work Matters Ireland represented the employer in the matter.
