Eircom, the parent company of eir, has given its employees a warning that their compliance to Irish laws relating to customer complaints, could result in disciplinary action, as mentioned in the company’s training guide. This manual also contained a list of “key phrases” which, if used by individuals making complaints, would help accelerate the handling of their concerns. Absence of these phrases often led to customer complaints being lost in the system.
During a legal action taken against the firm by ComReg, the communication regulator, in Dublin’s District Court, the telecom company pleaded guilty to ten counts of legal violations, relating to their failure to acknowledge and respond to customer complaints in a timely manner, and to provide an email address for escalating the complaint after 10 working days – criteria set by the telecom regulatory body.
During the court proceedings, it was noted that in January 2021, amendments made by Eircom to its complaints-handling protocol led to the limitation of its customers’ ability to formally lodge a complaint. Particularly, lodging complaints through the advertised customer care number, 1901, was not possible. Customers could only formally complain via a dedicated complaint helpline or an online complaint form.
Many customers reported that they were not able to lodge a formal complaint despite multiple attempts to contact the company through various means such as phone, letters or the online form.
Barrister Shelley Horan who represented ComReg presented examples of customer complaints that Eircom did not attend as per the Regulator’s Code of Practice. These issues were solved only after ComReg intervened.
ComReg’s compliance analyst, Michelle O’Donnell, testifying in front of Judge Anthony Halpin, mentioned that many customers of the telecom firm had reported that they could not lodge a formal complaint with the company. Following this, ComReg requested the training handbook given to the customer service staff.
One part of the manual, highlighted in red and bold, instructed the staff to not provide the complaint number or complaint webpage address under any circumstances. The instructions further threatened that disciplinary action for call avoidance would be taken against any employee infracting on this rule.
The guidance in the manual specified particular “keywords” callers could use to indicate their intent to lodge a formal complaint. Phrases such as “I want to log a formal/official complaint; I want a case reference number; I want a reference for ComReg; ComReg advised me to get a reference” and “I have a ComReg reference” were included. It was noted that complaints containing such phrases were swiftly addressed as formal.
However, those opting for phrases like “get me your manager; I want a supervisor; I’m not happy; I want to escalate; I want to complain” and “I want a manager callback” often had to wait for an extended time for their grievances to be addressed.
Eircom’s representative Hugh McDowell admitted guilt on behalf of the company during the court proceedings and stated the company had proposed a €20,000 charitable donation. He highlighted that company protocols had been updated and assured that they were now complying fully with the designated regulations.
Despite this, Judge Halpin declined the proposed donation due to the severity of the case. He stated, “I don’t think I can do it primarily because of what I see in the training manual,” Adding, “I know that this has changed and it is no longer the process.” The judge suggested that the legal department most likely did not review the training manual as its contents clearly contravened Irish labour legislation.
The company was fined €750 for each of the 10 counts, a decision which Judge Halpin stated was influenced by the company’s warning to its employees, which he described as an “aggravating factor” in the case.