{"id":405614,"date":"2026-04-18T20:03:19","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T20:03:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/405614\/"},"modified":"2026-04-18T20:03:19","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T20:03:19","slug":"salesman-awarded-e106000-after-donegal-business-failed-to-comply-with-earlier-wages-order-the-irish-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/405614\/","title":{"rendered":"Salesman awarded \u20ac106,000 after Donegal business failed to comply with earlier wages order \u2013 The Irish Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

A salesman who submitted that it was \u201chumiliating\u201d to be paid less than a younger colleague after 22 years of \u201cloyal and committed\u201d service has won \u20ac106,000 in an equality ruling against a Co Donegal<\/a> hair salon supplier.<\/p>\n

In making the award, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC)<\/a> ruled that the company\u2019s continuing failure to comply with an earlier order for unpaid wages due to the salesman was an act of discrimination. <\/p>\n

The salesman, Damien O\u2019Doherty, was awarded \u20ac53,000 for each of two separate breaches of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on the grounds of disability and age by his former employer, FM Salon Supplies Ltd, trading as Jules Hair and Beauty Supplies. <\/p>\n

Siobhan McCormack of Citizens\u2019 Information, appearing for O\u2019Doherty, told the WRC that a pay dispute arose at the company in 2023, and both her client and a younger colleague, A, made \u201cmirror\u201d complaints to the WRC. <\/p>\n

However, while the business made a deal with A leading to the withdrawal of his statutory complaint, no such arrangement was entered into with her client, Ms McCormack submitted. <\/p>\n

O\u2019Doherty\u2019s case was that at various stages, he had been told by his boss he \u201cshould start taking things easy\u201d and was asked whether he was \u201cgoing to continue working\u201d with reference to his age. <\/p>\n

In August 2023, O\u2019Doherty asked his employer whether he intended to resolve the claim, but was \u201cmet with hostility\u201d and was \u201cthereafter treated less favourably\u201d, it was submitted. <\/p>\n

His employer \u201cyelled at him\u201d and then proceeded to email him notice of suspension, the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

O\u2019Doherty met his employer again later that month and challenged him on why he was not being offered the same commission package as A, the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

His employer said the younger man had better sales figures \u2013 to which O\u2019Doherty replied that that A had been given a bigger sales territory, including some areas he once covered, the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

The employer then \u201ccategorically stated\u201d O\u2019Doherty \u201cwould not be offered the same deal\u201d, it was submitted on the complainant\u2019s behalf. <\/p>\n

It was at that point O\u2019Doherty told his employer for the first time he was suffering with his mental health, McCormack said. <\/p>\n

On August 28th, there was another meeting \u2013 recorded \u201ccovertly\u201d by the worker, the tribunal heard.<\/p>\n

In his submissions, the complainant argued that he disclosed his long-standing mental health disability to his employer in the hope that he would no longer be subjected to such \u201chumiliating and differential treatment\u201d on the pay issue, only for this to be used against him a week later.<\/p>\n

The complainant had 22 years \u201cloyal and committed service\u201d with the respondent company and had an exemplary work record,\u201d it was submitted. On August 28th, there was another meeting \u2013 recorded \u201ccovertly\u201d by the worker, the tribunal heard. <\/p>\n

Adjudication officer Shay Henry admitted the tape as evidence and noted in his decision that the employer \u201cswore at [O\u2019Doherty], was abusive, and referred to his mental health disability in a derogatory manner\u201d. <\/p>\n

In the complainant\u2019s submission, the employer was quoted calling O\u2019Doherty a \u201cprick\u201d and a \u201ctosspot\u201d \u2013 and went on to tell the salesman: \u201cYou say you have a nervous problem; you have a mental problem,\u201d the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

Medical evidence presented on O\u2019Doherty\u2019s behalf recorded a \u201csignificant deterioration in his mental health due to work-related stress\u201d, in the wake of the incident, with his condition becoming acute after the incident on the 28th. <\/p>\n

His pay claim was heard by the WRC on November 11th, 2025, by which time O\u2019Doherty had been suspended from his employment. <\/p>\n

No direct evidence was called by the respondent to rebut the discrimination complaints, adjudication officer Shay Henry noted in his decision. <\/p>\n

Henry wrote that O\u2019Doherty was \u201cjustified\u201d in believing there was a different system of pay in place for his colleague. The respondent had also not testified to refute the comments on age put in evidence by the complainant, Henry added.<\/p>\n

He concluded that age discrimination was at play and awarded 52 weeks\u2019 pay.<\/p>\n

Noting there was no evidence put forward to contradict O\u2019Doherty\u2019s account of remarks by his employer about his mental health, Henry also found the employer\u2019s behaviour to be discriminatory.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe decision of the respondent not to pay the award and to protract the issue could have a further detrimental effect on the complainant due to his disability and therefore I conclude that this was discriminatory,\u201d Henry added.<\/p>\n

He awarded O\u2019Doherty a further \u20ac53,000, a year\u2019s pay, for the disability discrimination \u2013 bringing the total sum awarded in the case to \u20ac106,000.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A salesman who submitted that it was \u201chumiliating\u201d to be paid less than a younger colleague after 22…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":55755,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[72,1485,61,60,1962,6465],"class_list":{"0":"post-405614","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-donegal","10":"tag-ie","11":"tag-ireland","12":"tag-work","13":"tag-workplace-relations-commission"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/405614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=405614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/405614\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/55755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=405614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=405614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=405614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}