A former call-centre manager with Concern Worldwide said bullying and harassment complaints against him were down to a “Gen Z/woke alliance” at work.
Lee Caluan told a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) tribunal how junior staff at the international development charity “turned the tables” after taking “a dislike to his management style”.
He said their complaints were “riddled with inconsistencies”.
Caluan had admitted calling a colleague a “b***h” in the course of a workplace inquiry into bullying and harassment complaints from three workers, a manager told the tribunal.
READ MORE
But his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Concern Worldwide was dismissed by the employment tribunal in a decision published on Wednesday.
Brian Joyce of Ibec, for Concern, said in a legal submission that the June 2024 dismissal was on foot of a “full and fair investigation”.
It said Caluan “carried out acts of gross misconduct” and said his behaviour breached the code of conduct and aligned with a breach of the bullying and harassment policy.
The investigation followed a formal complaint in August 2023 from three telemarketing executives who reported to Caluan indirectly, via their team lead, the WRC was told.
An investigations manager who gave evidence said Caluan “did not wish to engage” with the investigation initially and “declined any further or follow-up investigations”.
The witness said that after sending her draft report to Caluan for comment, he pointed out “differences in recollection”. She said she included his comments in her final report.
Caluan “did not take ownership of all of his actions, but made admissions on certain issues”, she said.
Another company witness who chaired an investigation meeting said Caluan told him he was going through a “stressful personal time in his life” and he “might have been overly short” with his colleagues.
“He acknowledged that he called a member of staff a ‘b***h’,” the witness said.
The evidence gathered during the process “supported most of the allegations made”. Ultimately, seven out of nine allegations against Caluan were upheld at the final stage of the process.
A member of the disciplinary panel to which Caluan’s case was referred told the WRC that Caluan had read a prepared statement alleging there was “a conspiracy by the three staff members” who complained about him.
Caluan’s representative, Garry McCabe, put it to this witness in cross-examination that a reference to “random bouts of anger” was perhaps just “robust discussion”.
“The evidence was there regarding [Caluan’s] annoyance, displeasure and hostility towards his co-workers,” the witness replied.
In oral evidence to the tribunal, Caluan said the matter that “gave rise to the whole issue” was his alleged “deadnaming” of a colleague. This led to a “marked change in how he was treated”, Caluan told the tribunal.
There were “proven lies and exaggeration” in the claims against him, he said, and witnesses recalled “far less detail than was raised” in the original complaints when interviewed.
He said there was a “a Gen Z/woke alliance against him”, the WRC adjudicator noted.
Allegations that he used “racial slurs” were false and a specific allegation that he used the N-word was “not borne out anywhere in the evidence against him”, Caluan said.
Questioned on “contradictory or exaggerated evidence”, the appeals manager said there were “inconsistencies”, but none was of a level that gave her concern.
There was “sufficient corroboration” to uphold the seven substantiated allegations against Caluan, she said. She also said she was satisfied there was “no evidence of collusion or coercion”.
The collective decision of the disciplinary panel was that Caluan’s behaviours “amounted to gross misconduct” and dismissal was the right sanction. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.
In the report outlining his decision on the case, WRC adjudication officer Conor Stokes said that the “preponderance of the evidence” indicated Concern had conducted the disciplinary process in line with fair procedures and natural justice.
Caluan’s dismissal was “within the range of what a reasonable employer would find appropriate and proportionate”.
“Therefore I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed,” Stokes said.
