Bookmaker sharply criticised over 'deplorable' treatment of sacked worker

Seán McCárthaigh

A leading bookmaker firm has been sharply criticised by an employment tribunal over its approach to an unfair dismissal case and its “deplorable” treatment of a sacked worker.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) said it was rare to encounter a case where there was “such a complete repertoire of gross breaches of fair procedure and of a worker’s rights.”

The WRC ruled that Bar One Racing had unfairly dismissed a service desk engineer, Liam Kyle, last January.

Bar One Racing – which was founded in 1995 by businessman, Barney O’Hare – operates over 50 betting shops in Ireland and employs over 300 staff.

WRC adjudication officer, Pat Brady, said the hearing of the case was “somewhat extraordinary”, largely due to the attitude of the company which he said demonstrated the “most casual indifference” to the case.

Mr Brady pointed out that Bar One Racing had made no written submission on the unfair dismissal claim.

He said two HR executives had attended the WRC hearing on behalf of the company but no witnesses relevant to the issue of Mr Kyle’s dismissal.

“It was stated that one person might be available, hardly an acceptable approach to a tribunal,” said Mr Brady

Bar One Racing accepted it had terminated Mr Kyle’s employment but claimed issues had arisen about his attendance and punctuality.

The company said it had recorded about 16 days of absence in total which it raised with Mr Kyle at a meeting in September 2024 which it denied was being held as a disciplinary hearing.

A second meeting was held in October 2024 and his employment was terminated at a final meeting in January 2025.

Mr Kyle told the WRC that there were no issues with his work which he described as “good.”

However, he said he noticed a few months after he became a full-time worker in October 2023 that his manager was reassigning work from other colleagues to him.

Mr Kyle accepted he had taken some sick leave and was slightly late on a few occasions but denied that it was frequent.

He recalled having a few information meetings about such issues but said no warnings had ever been issued to him.

Mr Kyle said he had not regarded the first meeting as a disciplinary hearing until he was handed a document to sign which was a record of his absences due to sick leave.

He gave evidence that he signed the document under duress as he was told that his employment could be terminated if he refused. He was also not permitted to retain a copy of it.

In his ruling, Mr Brady said there was “complete confusion” about the three meetings which Bar One Racing relied on for its defence of the case.

The WRC official noted the company had not made available any record of the first meeting or its outcome.

He observed that Bar One Racing claimed Mr Kyle had been given a warning at the meeting in October 2024 but that the complainant was confused as he only remembered being handed a document about his sick leave absences.

Mr Brady said Mr Kyle was not permitted to check the document and forced under duress to sign it

In what he described as “a bizarre twist”, Mr Brady said the company claimed Mr Kyle was shown the letter of warning on which reliance was subsequently placed three months later when it terminated his employment.

Mr Brady said it was unclear whether it was the same document but he said the failure of Bar Racing One to give Mr Kyle a copy was “fatal.”

The WRC said he drew obvious conclusions from the company apparently not considering it necessary to submit any other relevant documentation.

Mr Brady said it explained Mr Kyle’s belief that he had never been given a warning because he had never been given a copy of the warning.

“It seems probable that no such warning was given on the date claimed,” said Mr Brady.

He added: “Whatever way you may look at it, this meeting represented a gross violation of fair procedure requirements and of the complainant’s rights to a transparent process.”

The WRC said Mr Kyle had not been given any adequate notice of the disciplinary meeting, the nature of it, the right to be accompanied to it or the possible outcomes

Mr Brady said the meeting in January was “another masterclass in how not to convene a disciplinary meeting” as well as relying on a letter of warning allegedly issued the previous October.

The WRC ordered Bar One Racing to pay Mr Kyle compensation of €2,700 – the equivalent of five week’s pay – after hearing evidence that he had obtained alternative employment in that period.