Circle K ordered to pay €1,000 after female manager allegedly told worker to 'be a man'
Gordon Deegan
A manager at Circle K allegedly told an employee "come on, be a man" when insisting that he supervise a homeless man to clean up his own faeces from a toilet at a Dublin outlet.
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator Jim Dolan ordered Circle K to pay €1,000 compensation to shop supervisor Siddarth Thirunavukkarasu for the single incident of harassment concerning the "come on, be a man" comment.
Mr Dolan said Mr Thirunavukkarasu felt that the comment was harassment, concluding that it was “very difficult to disagree with the complainant”.
As part of a company grievance process arising from a complaint by Mr Thirunavukkarasu, manager Julita Howe disputed making the "come on, be a man" comment.
As part of his grievance, Mr Thirunavukkarasu alleged that Ms Howe confronted a homeless man who was outside a toilet at a Circle K Belgard outlet in southwest Dublin and threatened to report him to gardaí if he did not clean the faeces, which the man reluctantly agreed to.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu then alleged that Ms Howe then insisted that he supervise the homeless man while he cleaned, despite his discomfort and nausea from the smell.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu repeatedly refused to assist, but he alleged that Ms Howe pressured him to stay, even allegedly scolding him for using a mask without permission.
Upon returning, Mr Thirunavukkarasu observed the homeless man handling the mess with his bare hands, further increasing his discomfort.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu also said Ms Howe instructed him to provide the homeless man with a blue towel and gloves.
He alleges that she then told him, in a serious tone, to hold the toilet door open and watch the man clean the mess to ensure it wasn’t smeared everywhere.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu immediately refused, explaining once again that he did not want to enter the area as he felt nauseous and could not stand the smell.
He said that despite this, Ms Howe insisted, saying "come on, be a man," and forcing him to watch the man clean.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu added that eventually Ms Howe ordered him to clean the remaining mess, even though he felt unwell, while other staff were not asked to do so.
Mr Thirunavukkarasu felt singled out and unfairly treated. In his grievance letter, Mr Thirunavukkarasu also raised concerns about improper training for such situations and believes no employee should be asked to clean such unsanitary conditions.
A grievance procedure carried out by HR business partner Sara Murphy concerning the "come on, be a man" comment found there was were no witnesses to this exchange and Ms Howe disputes that the comment was made.
Ms Murphy concluded that “as a result, this point cannot be substantiated”.
The grievance procedure included a statement from Zahida Mustaq, the assistant store manager who corroborated Mr Thirunavukkarasu’s statement that he was asked to clean the toilet.
A grievance procedure conducted by Ms Murphy found that witness statements confirmed Ms Howe had initially asked the homeless man to clean the toilets and then instructed the complainant to do so when it became clear the task had not been completed adequately.
In her findings, Ms Murphy determined that this did not constitute a breach of the bullying and harassment policy.
However, Ms Murphy concluded Ms Howe should have recognised that the homeless man was not of sound mind to carry out this task properly and asking Mr Thirunavukkarasu to take over – despite him voicing his concerns and expressing his discomfort – was not in line with the dignity and respect policy. Therefore, this point was upheld in the company grievance procedure.
In response to the claim of harassment concerning the "be a man" comment, Circle K said that without prejudice or admission that this comment was made, that even if those words were used, they were merely a figure of speech rather than an act of discriminatory treatment, simply referencing the fact that he is indeed a man.
Circle K contended that pointing out that Mr Thirunavukkarasu is a man did not in any way harm him or affect his terms and conditions, and therefore, it is unable to understand how this could be considered discrimination on the grounds of gender.
The company also pointed out that in this case it acted reasonably by conducting a thorough investigation into Mr Thirunavukkarasu’s complaint.
Circle K pointed out that a bullying and harassment policy is in place to address such issues and reinforce the company’s zero-tolerance stance on such behaviours while additionally, employees receive training on this policy.
In the WRC ruling, Mr Dolan concluded there had been no act of discrimination or victimisation by Circle K against Mr Thirunavukkarasu.
