Hannah Murphy, a 22-year-old worker who claimed she was told she was “too young” and not prepared to run a salad bar, has been awarded £10,000 for discrimination based on age. Freshly Chopped Ltd, was found guilty under the Employment Equality Act, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), as reported on Wednesday.
Having been employed at the salad bar in Fairview, Dublin 3, for nearly two weeks in December 2020, Ms Murphy was training to become the Swords branch manager, located in the county’s north, the tribunal was told.
Freshly Chopped Ltd disputed the claim, maintaining that Ms Murphy failed her probation period. Nevertheless, Ms Murphy stated at a hearing in July 2022 that she had been under the impression everything was fine during her training phase. Ms Murphy said that the area manager arranged for her to meet her new colleagues, requested her uniform sizes, and expressed no dissatisfaction with her performance.
Ms Murphy stated that at the end of her two weeks of training, the area manager advised her against heading to Swords for her new position and instead asked her to return to the Fairview store the following day. This was when the manager admitted he believe he’d made a hiring mistake, telling Ms Murphy she was still too young and ill-prepared for the job – despite her experience as an assistant manager. He suggested she should return in two years when she might be better equipped.
According to Ms Murphy, upon starting training, the area manager had inquired about her age – which she revealed to be 22. He had been unaware of her age when she was first hired.
Freshly Chopped’s representative, Billy Wall from Peninsula Business Services, contended that Ms Murphy’s performance during training showed an unprofessional attitude. She added that the employee was caught multiple times taking her break in her uniform in the customer seating area, with her feet on the store’s furniture.
Ms Murphy acknowledged, upon being questioned, that she’d been cautioned about donning her uniform during lunch breaks, but was not warned about resting her feet on the chair until a final discussion with the regional manager. She countered two images provided by the defence – asserting they were snapped on one day, not two as the company insisted – and labelled their presentation of this evidence as “misrepresentation”. The firm, however, deemed Ms Murphy’s statement as “untruthful” and assessed the complaint hearing as an “unnecessary expenditure” of public funds.
In his testimony, the area manager refuted the employment of the term “casting mistake” in the termination conference, and denied suggesting she would be more suited to the role after two years. He categorically rejected making any remarks about her youth, but confessed to the WRC of his imprecise memory regarding the final meeting.
WRC’s Patricia Owens, in her judgement, complimented Ms Murphy on her honesty and candidness while giving evidence, even when it was to her own disadvantage. She contrasted this with the area manager’s hazy memory and hesitations on various matters. She described him as an “unreliable witness”.
Ms Owens, upon evaluating the probabilities, concluded that the regional manager had indeed made a comment about her ‘youth’ during the termination meeting. Ms Owens expressed difficulty believing, given the lack of a probation policy or evidence of a formal probation review process, that the firm had serious concerns about Ms Murphy’s supposed behaviour or work performance to warrant a termination on these grounds.
An email dated 23rd December 2023, from the claimant to the area manager, requested written clarification for the dismissal of her employee, clearly accusing the manager of suggesting she was ‘too young and unprepared for the role’. The adjudicator observed no counter to this claim in the response. Ms Owens concluded, “I am convinced that a manager, having not made such a comment, would instantly clarify their stance.”
The verdict given by her indicated that the regional manager’s decision to terminate Ms Murphy was partly due to her ‘youthfulness’. As a result, she was granted a sum of €10,000 as reparations for the age-related prejudice.