Employee Dismissed for “Fing Bh” Remark on Customer Call

Dublin,Ireland – A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling has upheld the⁢ dismissal of an employee who was found to have used offensive language towards a customer during a recorded phone call. The ⁢adjudicator, Penelope McGrath, dismissed claims of⁢ unfair dismissal⁢ and disability discrimination, finding the employee’s conduct constituted gross misconduct.

The Incident and Investigation

The case involved an employee, Ms. Lonergan, who was dismissed ⁤from her role after a customer call was reviewed as part of a company investigation. While the tape of the call had been wiped by the time the case reached⁢ the WRC, the adjudicator noted there was “no doubt that the complainant used the word ‘bh’ while on the⁤ call.”

Evidence presented by the ⁤company’s junior operations manager, who conducted the investigation, stated that the phrase used was: “What a fing b***h.” The adjudicator acknowledged that the tape had been played during the internal investigation and disciplinary process, and at that time, there was‍ “no dispute that the language which was used was unacceptable.”

Employee’s Defence and Discrimination Claims

Ms. Lonergan had also lodged a complaint of workplace discrimination,alleging that her dismissal was a pretext for her ongoing health issues.She cited instances ⁤of absences due to health troubles ⁢and emotional distress at work, stating she was “continually harassed about⁢ taking too long coming back from toilet and breaks‍ even though I was struggling with ⁣my various health issues.” She believed the company ⁤”took full chance to terminate my⁢ employment ⁣because of my ongoing health issues.”

Though, the adjudicator found no evidence to support these claims. Regarding the disability discrimination element, Ms. McGrath stated she did not get the impression that Ms. Lonergan’s team ⁢leader had to‍ “chivvy” her along from breaks any more than other staff. She also noted the absence of any disciplinary issues related to timekeeping, concluding that the team leader was likely “simply doing her job.”

Adjudicator’s Decision

The company’s representative argued that Ms. Lonergan’s behaviour constituted gross misconduct and ⁢warranted dismissal. In her decision,Adjudicator McGrath stated,”I approve the respondent position as set out in the submission received.”

Ms.Lonergan was commended by the adjudicator for having “owned her mistake immediately” and raising it with her team leader. She was permitted to continue working for several ⁤days following the incident while⁢ the⁢ disciplinary process unfolded. However, her dismissal in⁤ early July 2024, which involved her being “marched out of‍ the building,” ⁤was considered “regrettable” by the adjudicator.

Ultimately, Ms. McGrath dismissed Ms. Lonergan’s claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Further claims⁣ made by Ms. Lonergan ⁤under various employment acts,including the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Payment of ⁢Wages Act 1991,were also dismissed.