Judge slams Eircom for ‘disgraceful’ threat to customer care workers
Shelley Horan, counsel for ComReg, said Eircom did not adhere to the legal requirements, and made 'deliberate decisions' not to handle complaints in an acceptable manner.
A judge has described as "disgraceful" how telecom giant Eircom threatened staff with "disciplinary action" if they handled customer complaints according to its own code of conduct and in compliance with Irish law.
At Dublin District Court, Judge Anthony Halpin convicted and fined the company €7,500 after it was prosecuted by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) over its former customer complaints procedures.
Eircom, which said it had remedied the problem, also paid €10,000 in costs and pleaded guilty to 12 offences for breaching the Universal Service Regulations for two years commencing in mid-2021.
The court heard that a mother who was unable to make 999 calls when her daughter needed "urgent" medical attention was wrongly told there was nothing wrong with her service. Her father also ended up in hospital after a missed delivery of his breathing machine.
Shelley Horan, counsel for ComReg, said Eircom did not adhere to the legal requirements, and made "deliberate decisions" not to handle complaints in an acceptable manner.
ComReg compliance analyst Michelle O'Donnell told the hearing that customer care staff were warned not to give out the right customer complaint numbers or website address unless callers used specific "trigger words".
Ms O'Donnell said several Eircom customers informed ComReg that they could not make complaints.
In some cases, they went unacknowledged and unresolved for weeks or months.
The analyst outlined the offences, which included failing to comply with and implement a code of practice to settle unresolved disputes, provide a first point of contact for complaints, a means of recording complaints, acknowledge a complaint, give a unique identifier for reference, and respond to the problem within ten working days.
After 10 days, the firm was required to provide a specific number, email address and link to the online published code of practice to assist the customer.
However, Eircom agents were not permitted to give customers the complaints number or code of practice; otherwise, according to its training manual, they would face "disciplinary action."
She explained that the manual stated that calls would be transferred to the complaint line only if the customer used "trigger words" such as "code of practice", or mentioned the industry regulator ComReg.
In one of the cases, after four attempts, a customer got the correct number when ComReg assisted, and he could proceed with his complaint.
Not using the trigger words typically meant they were promised "callbacks" from a team leader or supervisor, which never happened in several instances.
The witness quoted the manual: "Under no circumstances are the complaints number or the complaints webpage address to be provided to the customer, and an agent found doing this would be subject to disciplinary action."
Questioned further by counsel, Ms O'Donnell said that Eircom was not in line with the legislation because the customers should have been able to make "first point of contact" complaints.
ComReg found that in the cases before the court, Eircom did not provide an acknowledgement within two working days, including a reference number, and did not comply with its requirement to resolve the problem within the maximum time frame of 10 working days or provide an email address to escalate the complaint.
Customers had to contact Eircom numerous times, but "promised callbacks" were not received. All the complaints before the court were resolved after ComReg intervened.
The witness outlined the impact on one customer.
The court heard that in December 2022, her mobile service dropped, and she did not receive calls. A local engineer informed her it was a mast issue.
Over six months, the woman called Eircom 13 times and sent five emails and eight messages via social media without sorting out the issue.
On every occasion, she requested a reference number but was repeatedly told she did not need one and that there was nothing wrong with the mast, and "Eircom remained adamant there was nothing wrong".
But the court heard on one occasion having no service meant she was unable to make a 999 call for her daughter and had to drive her to A&E for urgent medical attention.
She also missed a delivery of her father's CPAP breathing machine, and he ended up in hospital.
On June 26, after ComReg intervened, the phone company admitted there was a mast issue. She was advised to move to a different provider and was given a €80 voucher.
The judge noted that Eircom had prior prosecutions in 2013 and 2015 in cases brought by the Data Protection Commission.
One resulted in a €3,000 fine, and the other led to it getting the Probation of Offenders Act after donating €35,000 to charity.
Judge Halpin noted the rest of the convictions and said the company was entitled to the benefit of the Spent Fines Act. He said he was not looking at convictions from more than five years ago.
The offence carries a maximum €5,000 fine per offence. Eircom, offering a €20,000 payment to charity, pleaded for a chance to avoid a fresh conviction.
Hugh McDowell, for Eircom, said the firm has since rectified the problem, and he was instructed to apologise to customers.
However, Judge Halpin demanded: "What about your apologies to Eircom employees?"
"Because," he added, "from what I can see here, if an employee here, motivated to ensure his duties are carried out lawfully, breached a condition of his or her contract and faced disciplinary action, surely that cannot be just."
He said he could not believe what he had seen, adding: "That is disgraceful to threaten employees with disciplinary action because they are carrying their duties out in compliance with Irish law."
He said the staff deserved an apology.
In mitigation, counsel said that since early 2023, Eircom changed its process as part of a multi-million euro transformation programme after being taken over by NJJ Telecom Europe.
The court heard it has sped up customer complaints, was compliant with the legal requirements and complaints to ComReg had dropped to the lowest-ever level.
Judge Halpin noted the changes made, said the guilty pleas avoided a three-day trial and noted the charity donation offer.
However, he said he could only conclude that Eircom's legal department did not vet the training manual. He recorded convictions and imposed €7,500 in fines.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
