Homesavers ordered to pay €13,000 to former supervisor who was fired because he was a Traveller

Seán McCárthaigh

The retail chain, Homesavers, has been ordered to pay €13,000 compensation to a former supervisor who was found to have been fired after four weeks in the job because he was a Traveller.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Ballymaley Stores Limited, which operates the homeware group, had discriminated against Mark O’Connor on grounds of being a member of the Traveller community.

The WRC found that Homesavers was in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 over the manner in which it dismissed him from its store in Bunclody, Co Wexford in November 2021.

It heard evidence that there were several incidents where managers had made references to Mr O’Connor about “k******s” including customers to the store.

Such claims were denied by the legal representative of Homesavers who said the company was not aware he was a Traveller.

WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, said Mr O’Connor had tolerated very poor treatment for three weeks before being asked to keep an eye on his aunt when she came into the store with her child, when he decided the situation was unacceptable.

Ms Byrne ruled that the company should pay €13,000 compensation – the equivalent of 26 weeks’ pay – and also directed it to consult with an advocacy body for the Traveller community and provide training for its managers regarding the promotion of dignity and respect in the workplace.

Mr O’Connor gave evidence that he had “turned a blind eye” during the first few days in the job when an area manager told him to leave wooden pallets to the side because “the k******s go mad for them.”

He told the WRC that he was “surprised, but not surprised” by the comment, but felt he would lose his job if he revealed his identity. He also recounted how a member of the Traveller community came into the store for a refund for a broken vacuum cleaner.

Mr O’Connor said his manager, Leah Sullivan, told him to give the customer a refund, but after asking if the customer was a Traveller replied: “F**k her – let her come into me on Monday.”

The complainant said he was also asked by Ms Sullivan to follow three local lads, who were related to him, who had come into the store in navy work jackets.

Mr O’Connor said he was also told the following day to follow “a k*****r woman with a child.”

He claimed Ms Sullivan asked him if he was related to “every f**king k*****r in the town,” when he told her that the customers were his aunt and cousin, and he was not going to follow Travellers around the store.

He believed he was subsequently sent to clean a warehouse for two days as punishment, while he was also removed from cash-handling duties.

The complainant said the way Ms Sullivan referenced Travellers was like “a punch in the gut.”

He claimed Traveller children were always followed around the stores, unlike settled children.

On another occasion, Mr O’Connor said he was told to “worry about the k******s” when he pointed out that a woman who was well-known in Bunclody as a shoplifter had walked out of the store with a Christmas tree.

In evidence, Ms Sullivan denied all allegations about references she had made to Travellers and said she was never aware Mr O’Connor was a Traveller until late 2024, when he had submitted a complaint to the WRC.

Ms Sullivan told the WRC that she informed Mr O’Connor at the time of his dismissal that she couldn’t answer any questions about why he was being let go.

However, she said it was because of his failure to manage and drive the team, complete his own tasks and communicate with his line manager, as well as his unauthorised use of a mobile phone on the shop floor.

Ms Byrne said it seemed that the requirement for Mr O’Connor to “manage and drive the team” was outside the remit of someone who was on an hourly rate of €11.20, while there was no reference to such a requirement in the job description.

The WRC official accepted that Homesavers was entitled to dismiss Mr O’Connor during his probation period, but said it was clear that its policy was to address issues of concern with a new employee in the first instance and to give them an opportunity to improve their performance.

Ms Byrne said the failure of his line manager to follow the company’s probation policy and its failure to provide an explanation why it was not done led her to believe that there were no problems with his performance or conduct and that he was dismissed because he was a Traveller.

She said it was difficult to accept that Ms Sullivan did not know the complainant was a Traveller, and it was entirely credible that he informed her of this fact when he was asked to keep an eye on his aunt when she came into the store with her child.

The WRC adjudicator said it seemed that Ms Sullivan consulted with someone in authority after learning he was a Traveller and was instructed to assign him to the warehouse until they decided what to do.

Ms Byrne said the complainant was a credible witness whose statement to the WRC that he was “sick of the way we are treated” concurred with his experience of being dismissed.

Contrary to a submission by Homesavers’ solicitor, Anthony Nagle, that Mr O’Connor was sensitive to discrimination, Ms Byrne said he was “a stoic, pragmatic individual.”

Ms Byrne added: “It seems to me that he presented the respondent with a challenge to live up to its policy not to discriminate against employees who are members of the Traveller community and that they resiled from that challenge.”