Traveller wins payout after staff told they aren't 'like knackers going door to door selling tarmac'

The case was heard at the WRC

A sales assistant for a company selling solar panels, who is a Traveller, has been awarded €15,000 in compensation after a consultant told a meeting of staff that they were “not like a pack of knackers going door to door selling tarmac".

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the sales assistant, Kieran Reilly, had been harassed under the Employment Equality Act 1998 as a result of the derogatory remarks made during a meeting of sales staff working at Energy Centre Limited in Duleek, Co Meath.

The company did not dispute that the comments had been made and it accepted liability for the harassment experienced by Mr Reilly.

It clarified that the remarks were made by a consultant hired to address its sales force and not a member of management which Mr Reilly had believed.

The WRC heard that Mr Reilly resigned his job, for which he received a salary of €900 per week, after just over one month working for Energy Centre Limited in March 2025.

He told the WRC that he was a diligent and highly proficient employee who had exceeded his sales targets during his brief tenure.

Mr Reilly outlined how at a meeting of the sales team on March 12, 2025 he was presented as an exemplary worker whom colleagues should emulate.

The WRC heard that during the meeting a consultant said sales ought to increase because they had a quality product and were “not like a pack of knackers going door to door selling tarmac".

Mr Reilly, who was represented by solicitor, Andy Walsh of KOD Lyons Solicitors, said it was a statement that contained a term understood to be an exceptionally derogatory slur directed at members of the Traveller community.

He claimed the comments also implied that a person would be hostile to Travellers calling at their door.

Mr Reilly said he was proud of his professional achievements and was deeply upset and disappointed to encounter such an attitude in a supposedly professional environment.

The WRC heard that he received a text message from the person who made the comment later the same day in which he apologised in an apparently heartfelt manner.

The consultant said it had not been his intention to cause offence and offered to meet Mr Reilly to resolve the matter.

While the complainant accepted the apology, he claimed it did not mitigate the wrong or harm caused by the comments as he had been clearly and vigorously harassed.

Mr Reilly gave evidence that he felt unable to continue his employment and terminated his role with immediate effect, claiming that the harassment had undermined his faith in the company’s ability to provide a safe working environment.

Counsel for Energy Centre Limited, Eoin Kidd BL, said the company accepted it was vicariously liable for the consultant’s action.

Mr Kidd said the comments did not serve to diminish the harm caused or their impact on Mr Reilly notwithstanding the fact they were not intentionally directed at him.

He said the company accepted they were “offensive, reckless and unacceptable” and it recognised the hurt and offence they caused.

Mr Kidd argued that in fixing compensation the WRC should take into consideration that the comment was not directed at Mr Reilly and an apology had been issued by the company itself in an unreserved manner.

He also stated that the company was committed to preventing a recurrence of the incident and had agreed for staff to undergo all recommended training as well as implementing measures to ensure all employees and consultants understood their obligations under equality employment legislation.

WRC adjudication officer, Brian Dolan, said it was unambiguous that the use of the derogatory term was unwanted by Mr Reilly and was hostile towards the Traveller community which served to violate the complainant’s dignity.

Mr Dolan said it was clear that Mr Reilly had been harassed within the meaning of the legislation.

Acknowledging and welcoming the apology and other measures taken by the company, he said they still did not negate the simple fact that the term used by the consultant was “extremely derogatory".

“Such language is entirely unacceptable in the workplace,” he added.

Mr Dolan said it was understandable that Mr Reilly viewed the company’s response as a damage limitation exercise.

The WRC official said it was abundantly clear that the harassment had a profoundly detrimental effect on the complainant and had directly led to his decision to resign his job.

He ordered the company to pay compensation of €15,000 – the equivalent of approximately four months’ salary.

The WRC also directed the company to engage in training on dignity and respect in the workplace within two months.