The Richard Keys defence results in €17.5 payout

Brock Turnpike

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/chef-who-asked-for-kiss-after-all-ireland-win-awarded-17-500-for-unfair-dismissal-1.4059046?mode=amp

Irish Times wrote:

A chef who was sacked and accused of sexual harassment after asking a female colleague for a kiss when Dublin won the All-Ireland has been awarded compensation of €17,500 for unfair dismissal.

The avid GAA supporter told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he was “elated” and in “high spirits” after the Dublin football team won the “four-in-a-row” last year.

He was leaving work to attend the homecoming celebrations, and told his female co-worker that he thought this “deserves a kiss”, pointing to his cheek. He later described the comment as “simply banter”.

Well???

Bunny Colvin

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/chef-who-asked-for-kiss-after-all-ireland-win-awarded-17-500-for-unfair-dismissal-1.4059046?mode=amp



Well???

Jesus, imagine putting a complaint in over that.

D3V!L

What about the woman he sexually harassed ?

Its not he actually won the 4-in-a-row, is it ? He was just a creepy chef who tried it on with a female co-worker.

spodoinkle

Surely the I'll give you a smack reply was grounds for an assault complaint so

Ficheall

D3V!L wrote: »

What about the woman he sexually harassed ?

Its not he actually won the 4-in-a-row, is it ? He was just a creepy chef who tried it on with a female co-worker.

Why creepy?

munster87

D3V!L wrote: »

What about the woman he sexually harassed ?

Its not he actually won the 4-in-a-row, is it ? He was just a creepy chef who tried it on with a female co-worker.

Where was the sexual harassment!? He asked for a kiss and was turned down!

jam_mac_jam

munster87 wrote: »

Where was the sexual harassment!? He asked for a kiss and was turned down!

That's sexual harassment.


Not worthy of being sacked over but it is sexual harassment. Its creepy, you are in work you shouldn't be asked for kisses.


Definition -
behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.

EmmetSpiceland

He must have been an incredibly ugly “person”, inside and out.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That's sexual harassment.


Not worthy of being sacked over but it is sexual harassment. Its creepy, you are in work you shouldn't be asked for kisses.


Definition -
behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.

and?

the key point, as always, is that if it wasnt worth being sacked for then he shouldnt have been sacked

if companies cared that much about the size of payouts, they wouldnt make such a balls up of simple processes governing disciplinary matters.

Ficheall

Imagine if the gazillion hookups in the scandals thread has been nipped in the bud as sexual harassment - the world would be full of phantom ****ters.

the beer revolu

Deleted User wrote: »

and?

the key point, as always, is that if it wasnt worth being sacked for then he shouldnt have been sacked

if companies cared that much about the size of payouts, they wouldnt make such a balls up of simple processes governing disciplinary matters.

Someone questioned if it was sexual harassment.
Jam simply pointed out that it was, albeit, on the minor side of things.

and?

Brock Turnpike

debok

Did he not ask for consent?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

D3V!L wrote: »

What about the woman he sexually harassed ?

Its not he actually won the 4-in-a-row, is it ? He was just a creepy chef who tried it on with a female co-worker.

So "trying it on" with a female is now creepy...?

Problem here is that the consent awareness people want everyone to ask first, (and rightfully so), but then asking is ALSO deemed harassment....??!

No wonder people are ****ign confused.

Brock Turnpike

D3V!L

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So "trying it on" with a female is now creepy...?

Problem here is that the consent awareness people want everyone to ask first, (and rightfully so), but then asking is ALSO deemed harassment....??!

No wonder people are ****ign confused.

Sorry, I forgot to put the sarcasm tags on that post :pac:

Ficheall

D3V!L wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot to put the sarcasm tags on that post :pac:

I'm not sure the sarcasm tags would work there - are you sure you didn't just realise you were being ridiculous?

D3V!L

Ficheall wrote: »

I'm not sure the sarcasm tags would work there - are you sure you didn't just realise you were being ridiculous?

I believe my track record here will further re-enforce my previous statement your honour.

Yer Da sells Avon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So "trying it on" with a female is now creepy...?

Problem here is that the consent awareness people want everyone to ask first, (and rightfully so), but then asking is ALSO deemed harassment....??!

No wonder people are ****ign confused.

Unless you're really thick, it's not confusing at all. You won't go far wrong if you behave appropriately towards your colleagues, especially if you don't know them well - i.e. don't ask them to kiss you because some sports team won a game. They're there to do a job, not to satisfy your creepy urges.

Snow Garden

I thought he just won 17.50

turbot

For the avoidance of doubt, my use of the following language is intended only and wholly in terms of the interpretation of "silly and fruit" and in no way suggestive of "anatomical likeness".

I find this whole thing to be a bit bananas*

*Should you in anyway internalise a potential interpretation derivation of this statement as relating to anatomical likeness, please consider your brain a potential risk for you and others.

jam_mac_jam

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So "trying it on" with a female is now creepy...?

Problem here is that the consent awareness people want everyone to ask first, (and rightfully so), but then asking is ALSO deemed harassment....??!

No wonder people are ****ign confused.

Yes. its creepy. Don't try it on with us in work. We are there to earn money.

suicide_circus

Snow Garden wrote: »

I thought he just won 17.50

i thought he won 17 and a half million!

is_that_so

No surprise at this one and deserved payout IMO. A conversation on workplace behaviour and maybe a grovelling apology at most. Man was just being an eejit.

blinding

Are women just too fragile for the work place or just too fragile when it suits !

Yer Da sells Avon

blinding wrote: »

Are women just too fragile for the work place or just too fragile when it suits !

Misogyny aside, some people just want to go to work and do their job, without being hassled by some clown who thinks he's 'great craic'.

Ficheall

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes. its creepy. Don't try it on with us in work.

Or other social situation, according to the definition you quoted, right?

blinding

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Misogyny aside, some people just want to go to work and do their job, without being hassled by some clown who thinks he's 'great craic'.

So women are too fragile for a bit of banter and are not able to cope with a bit of banter .

Maybe they just want a safe space back at home !

When they said they wanted equality was it too much to expect they could handle a bit of banter .

Women up . They just discredit genuine cases .

namloc1980

The problem here was the company's stupid zero tolerance policy. HR like these policies because it means they don't have to engage their brains or use their judgment. A verbal warning would've been sufficient.

Stevieluvsye

Hmmm i'll reserve some judgement here as i think this comes down to the content of their working "relationship" he could well be an absolute sleazy k!nt and the job had had enough and bypassed normal protocal

super_furry

Seems like the right decision. A word from HR should have been enough.

blinding

namloc1980 wrote: »

The problem here was the company's stupid zero tolerance policy. HR like these policies because it means they don't have to engage their brains or use their judgment. A verbal warning would've been sufficient.

HR could just have kissed and made up with the Guy . Probably fine if they were all guys .

is_that_so

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Hmmm i'll reserve some judgement here as i think comes comes down to the content of their working "relationship" he could well be an absolute sleazy k!nt and the job had had enough and bypassed normal protocal

All we have is the article in the OP to go on and it does highlight the disproportionate response of the company. As it also states and as mentioned on this thread there are less severe means of dealing with it.

jam_mac_jam

Ficheall wrote: »

Or other social situation, according to the definition you quoted, right?

No just work. I don't think that is a crazy idea that you should be able to go to your job without getting creeped on. Maybe it is.

Yer Da sells Avon

blinding wrote: »

So women are too fragile for a bit of banter and are not able to cope with a bit of banter .

Maybe they just want a safe space back at home !

When they said they wanted equality was it too much to expect they could handle a bit of banter .

Women up . They just discredit genuine cases .

What a thick post, on so many levels. I know your intention is to bash women, but you unwittingly do men a disservice. Most of us have a bit of cop on and know who we can and can't engage in 'banter' with. He was in the job four days.

Stevieluvsye

is_that_so wrote: »

All we have is the article in the OP to go on and it does highlight the disproportionate response of the company.

I have a feeling this story has a lot more to the background than what we know of

jam_mac_jam

blinding wrote: »

So women are too fragile for a bit of banter and are not able to cope with a bit of banter .

Maybe they just want a safe space back at home !

When they said they wanted equality was it too much to expect they could handle a bit of banter .

Women up . They just discredit genuine cases .

Maybe just don't ask for kisses in work. What you consider "banter" may not be considered by others. So just don't. You are fragile if you don't want creeps trying it on with you. I see.

is_that_so

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I have a feeling this story has a lot more to the background than what we know of

Well WRC has deemed it unfair dismissal and they didn't follow any form of procedure. Procedures are there for everyone including addressing how people behave as well as varying levels of sanctions.

Stevieluvsye

is_that_so wrote: »

Well WRC has deemed it unfair dismissal and they didn't follow any form of procedure. Procedures are there for everyone including addressing how people behave as are the varying levels of sanctions.

I agree, they (Company) dealt with it incorrectly and the judgement was correct

Diceicle

Its certainly possible that the complailant was dressed in a workplace-inappropriate or sexually suggestive clothing - which may have given off the wrong message. Leave the high-heels, low-cut blouses and make-up at home, ladies.

namloc1980

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

What a thick post, on so many levels. I know your intention is to bash women, but you unwittingly do men a disservice. Most of us have a bit of cop on and know who we can and can't engage in 'banter' with. He was in the job four days.

Three years according to the article, but had been working with the complainant for just 4 days.

Stevieluvsye

Diceicle wrote: »

Its certainly possible that the complailant was dressed in a workplace-inappropriate or sexually suggestive clothing - which may have given off the wrong message. Leave the high-heels, low-cut blouses and make-up at home, ladies.

Speculation

It's certainly possible she was dressed in a wooly jumper, jeans and wellies

jam_mac_jam

Diceicle wrote: »

Its certainly possible that the complailant was dressed in a workplace-inappropriate or sexually suggestive clothing - which may have given off the wrong message. Leave the high-heels, low-cut blouses and make-up at home, ladies.

Jesus Christ.

Yer Da sells Avon

namloc1980 wrote: »

Three years according to the article, but had been working with the complainant for just 4 days.

They'd worked together for just four days. In that situation, I think most of us wouldn't dream of behaving like that.

blinding

The ladies can’t cut it in the work place . Time off for periods , time off for the menopause , can’t handle a bit of banter , when the going gets tough / heavy , let the men do it . Long hours ; let the men do it . Work far from home ; let the men do it .

Women have found the work place much harder than they thought it was and find every and any exuse to do a runner to their safe place at home watching Good Morning TV and the Like .

Give it up Ladies most of ye would be much happier at home with yer’e feet up .

blinding

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

They'd worked together for just four days. In that situation, I think most of us wouldn't dream of behaving like that.

For all we know she may have been pouting at him for 4 days .

Yer Da sells Avon

Diceicle wrote: »

Its certainly possible that the complailant was dressed in a workplace-inappropriate or sexually suggestive clothing - which may have given off the wrong message. Leave the high-heels, low-cut blouses and make-up at home, ladies.

blinding wrote: »

The ladies can’t cut it in the work place . Time off for periods , time off for the menopause , can’t handle a bit of banter , when the going gets tough / heavy , let the men do it . Long hours ; let the men do it . Work far from home ; let the men do it .

Women have found the work place much harder than they thought it was and find every and very exude to do a runner to their safe place at home watching Good Morning TV and the Like .

Give it up Ladies most of ye would be much happier at home with yer’e feet up .

It's like you're trying to compete with each other for who can make the thickest post.

It's a draw.

jam_mac_jam

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's like you're trying to compete with each other for who can make the thickest post.

It's a draw.

Yep. I'm out, what is even the point.

namloc1980

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

They'd worked together for just four days. In that situation, I think most of us wouldn't dream of behaving like that.

Absolutely, doesn't change the fact the company lost the unfair dismissal hearing.

Peatys

D3V!L wrote: »

I believe my track record here will further re-enforce my previous statement your honour.

Overruled.

Brock Turnpike

To be perfectly honest, he sounds like the worst type of Dublin fan. Why does he think that him going out to celebrate Dublin winning 4-in-a-row deserves a kiss?