A hotel night manager sacked for bullying a gay colleague has won €3,000 for unfair dismissal because his employer missed an email from him attempting to appeal his firing.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found the hotel operator, Cantarini Limited “acted reasonably” by sacking the worker, Omar Mohammed Osman – but breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when it missed his email asking to exercise his right of appeal, and failed to respond.
Mr Osman, who was a night manager at the City Quay aparthotel in Dublin city Centre, was sacked on foot of findings that he was bullying a gay colleague, Mr D, because of his sexuality.
However, Mr Osman argued that he was accused of homophobia in a “thinly veiled attempt to penalise him” for raising concerns about how he was being treated by managers.
‘Alan Hawe was a wolf in sheep’s clothing who fooled us all’: Clodagh Hawe’s sister on her fight for the truth
The ‘gentrification’ of Dublin: ‘Young people are coming in, buying houses and gutting them’
Gerry Adams defamation trial: laughs from the jury, a judge’s intervention and a ‘very fine story’ about a hedgehog
David McWilliams: In South Africa I see stark evidence of extraordinary income inequalities
Mr D had complained that Mr Osman called him “a big homosexual” and “princess”, the WRC noted. Mr D further alleged that Mr Osman called him by a nickname that “sounded like he was being referred to as an animal” – as well as whistling at him and mocking his accent.
Mr Osman’s evidence to the WRC was that he has “no issue with homosexuals” and is “not homophobic”, the adjudicator hearing the case noted.
He stated that he couldn’t have whistled at his former colleague, because he did not “know how to whistle”. He also told the tribunal that when he used the word “princess”, he had been referring to a female colleague, the decision recorded.
His position was that none of the allegations made against him by Mr D were true.
The tribunal was told that before Mr D’s complaint, Mr Osman had received a written warning by his manager for “letting the team down” by leaving work around 30 minutes into a shift in December 2023.
However, Mr Osman complained to the company that his line manager and other staff had been “in the back office when they should have been working” and that the manager was “shouting and cursing” at him, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Osman emailed the company’s HR manager complaining of “bullying” from a night duty team leader, Mr L, on March 14th, 2024, two days before he was interviewed for the first time in connection with the harassment complaint against him.
He formalised the grievance later in the month, before being interviewed again in connection with the dignity at work investigation.
Five days later, the disciplinary process concluded with findings that Mr Osman had been “bullying and harassing a colleague in relation to their sexual orientation and race”, and he was dismissed.
After the matter was heard by the WRC in January, Mr Osman’s legal team furnished the WRC with an email he had sent asking to appeal the dismissal.
The respondent’s head of human resources, Victoria Scrase, told the WRC there was no response because the person Mr Osman had written to had themselves left the company four days after Mr Osman’s sacking.
Mr Osman’s position was that it was “unfair to investigate a complaint made about him when he had been complaining for six months about how he was treated and nothing had been done”.
His barrister, Joseph Bradley BL, instructed by Melissa Wynne of Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that his client had been subjected to “aggressive and violent outbursts at work” and had been met with a “dismissive” stance when he first complained in October 2023.
“He was accused of homophobia, in a thinly veiled attempt to penalise him for raising concerns about how he was treated by managers,” Mr Bradley submitted.
Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision that even at the hearing before the WRC, Mr Osman seemed to be “unaffected by the possibility that he offended his colleague”. She did not accept his explanation for his use of the word “princess”, she wrote.
Will DoorDash takeover of Deliveroo mean better pay and conditions for gig economy workers?
“A simple acknowledgment of the effect that his behaviour had on his colleague may have made a difference and could have avoided his dismissal,” Ms Byrne added.
She said she could see no alternative except to find the company was “reasonable” to dismiss Mr Osman, a worker she wrote was “unable to see the effect of his behaviour… and apologise for the distress he had caused”.
“It is very regrettable that he didn’t seek some wise counsel before he engaged in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his dismissal,” she added.
However, she concluded that because the company did not respond to an email from Mr Osman seeking to exercise his right of appeal, the dismissal was unfair because of this “procedural failure”.
Ms Byrne rejected further claims of penalisation in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by Mr Osman.
Mr Osman’s position was that he was only accused of homophobia and subjected to disciplinary action as a reaction to complaining about Mr L.
Ms Byrne concluded that that Mr Osman had played a part in the conflict among staff and that his grievances were addressed by management. He “was attempting to distract attention” from Mr D’s complaint against him when he raised his grievances in March 2024, she added.
