The Workplace Relations Commission has heard that an ex-employee of Yeomanstown Stud, one of Ireland’s elite independent stud farms, was obliged to manually record each bank activity in ledgers because of the management’s traditional approach and unfamiliarity with online banking. The former bookkeeper, who is claiming unfair dismissal, was accused by Yeomanstown Stud of making an error of €11 million in one of the ledgers.
Gillian Keane, the former employee, alleged that she was subjected to aggressive behaviour in the presence of a co-worker upon her return to work following nearly a month’s sick leave due to work-related stress. She earlier accused a manager of bullying. However, the stud farm owners, horse breeders Rolline and David O’Callaghan, assert that Ms. Keane was the one who behaved aggressively on November 1st the previous year. The O’Callaghans, who are directors of Mull Enterprises Ltd and Ms. Keane’s previous employers, have questioned her credibility before the employment tribunal.
Their barrister, Mark Finan BL, said the company informed Ms. Keane on October 5th that they were to recruit a financial manager. Ms. Keane had insisted that she was already assuming the role. Mr. Finan criticised Ms. Keane’s work standards, stating that she committed notable errors and refused to accept what he referred to as “constructive criticism” from Ms. O’Callaghan.
The tribunal heard that Ms. Keane felt that her standing was attacked single-handedly when told she could apply for the financial manager role. She said that the office manager had fostered an “extremely unpleasant environment” that disrupted her concentration. To cope, she resorted to wearing headphones at work. The date when Ms. Keane will present her main evidence is yet to be scheduled.
Rolline O’Callaghan anticipated the return of Ms Keane to her job post medical leave on 17th October, on the condition that she supplied a doctor’s certificate stating her ability to resume work. However, Ms Keane did not fulfil the condition.
The atmosphere at the office was aggressive, as painted by Mr Finan’s interrogation of his client, who speaks of Ms Keane’s apparent animosity. According to O’Callaghan, Ms Keane sat at her desk, flicking through her phone in a hostile manner, yelling and being aggressive which led to a chaotic ending in which she simply stormed out.
Contrarily, Ms Keane, while cross-questioning her ex-manager, refused to acknowledge that she showed aggression or exited her workplace in a huff on 17th October.
Consequently, due to stress from her work environment, she went on another medical leave, as was reported to the tribunal. O’Callaghan also revealed that prior to an official meeting on 31st October at the Osprey Hotel in Naas, Ms Keane had twice mentioned having interpersonal issues at the office but never labelled them as “bullying”. Post this meeting, there was an understanding that any complaint regarding bullying would be properly addressed if submitted in writing.
Despite this, Ms Keane’s statements to the tribunal pointed out that the ensuing workday was far from normal when she discovered that her passwords were altered, leaving her unable to access online banking. This, she noted, caused her feeling of unease and sickness.
O’Callaghan clarified that a significant portion of Ms Keane’s responsibilities revolved around manually recording all bank transactions for four companies operating at a stud farm. This procedure principally catered to her traditionalist father-in-law, horse breeder Gay O’Callaghan, and her husband, both unfamiliar and uncomfortable with online banking, she explains.
On her second stint post medical leave, starting 1st November, Ms Keane was confronted with errors in her work – a ledger that was incorrectly balanced, showing an excess of €11 million, as disclosed by Mr Finan.
In a testimony to her representative, Mrs. O’Callaghan verified that, in accordance with Ms. Keane’s account, her father-in-law went to the accounts office on the 1st of November to address the inconsistency in their finances. He shared with the plaintiff that he nearly suffered a cardiac arrest upon realising the discrepancy. As per Mrs. O’Callaghan, the modification to online bank access was the result of Ms. Keane’s absence, and she refuted allegations of having instructed the employee to proceed with handwritten records, asserting she held a more professional approach in communicating with her staff.
Mrs. O’Callaghan stated that Ms. Keane had expressed discomfort due to the cold temperature in the office, which prompted her to close the door. This action, however, was met with protest from Ms. Keane who claimed feeling trapped and threatened to contact the police. “With the situation having spiralled out of control, I had to call in David [O’Callaghan], my spouse,” Mrs. O’Callaghan revealed.
David O’Callaghan’s account testified to an antagonistic atmosphere between Gillian and Rolline. He commented, “When the idea of calling the Garda was aired, and Rolline sought the presence of a support person, Ms. Keane also requested one. I agreed, but this led to her believing I had dismissed her, a transparent attempt of twisting my words.” He expressed that it was evident that their professional bond had deteriorated, and that Ms. Keane was clearly unhappy in the workplace. This led him to propose a severance deal, which included a month’s salary as part of the agreement to terminate the working relationship with Ms. Keane.
When she desired a three-month payout, they reached a compromise on two months. A formal severance agreement was then drawn up by their legal representative. “That was it,” he said, describing their decision to part ways as a mutual one.
However, during the cross-examination, Ms. Keane questioned Mr. O’Callaghan, ”Can you admit that a fair share of the mortifying behaviour took place in the presence of another employee?” He responded, “I don’t agree that anyone was humiliated. You voiced discomfort and requested a support person be involved; we agreed you could have a support person in the room.”
The company’s viewpoint is that Ms Keane’s claim stands no chance of success as, from their perspective, a termination of her employment contract was mutually agreed upon during a phone call with Mr O’Callaghan on November 1. The company asserts that a severance package equivalent to two months’ wages was discussed during this conversation.
However, Ms Keane disputes any agreement to such a deal during the phone call, stating an unexpected written severance agreement came to her on November 17. She acknowledged the receipt of a certain sum, but clarified that this was related to her holiday allowances and not severance, as she hadn’t received an explanatory payslip.
The case has been temporarily put on hold by arbitrator Conor Stokes, who will listen to Ms Keane’s personal testimony at a later date.