A claim by an employee at An Post in Dublin that she was disciplined after she made a complaint against a supervisor who “kicked” her chair and told her to serve a customer has been thrown out by the Employment Tribunal.

Veronica Dowling told the court she felt her workplace had become “unsafe and hostile” after she reported the incident to a manager who she believed supported her supervisor’s behavior without taking action.

Ms Dowling challenged a decision by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which found no basis for the claim that she had been disciplined for making the complaint.

The court upheld this decision and another, in a related casein which Ms Dowling was awarded €1,000 compensation for age-related harassment after she said she was taunted by the same supervisor when told a Gibert O’Sullivan song on the radio was “her old one” and a number of younger colleagues laughed.

Ms Dowling took the penalty case against An Post under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 in relation to an incident on 5 June 2020 at An Post’s St Andrew Street branch when she alleged that the supervisor they gave him the chair he was in. at a counter, a “resounding place” and aggressively suggested to “serve the customer”.

She said she felt alarm and shock, that the act of punching or kicking another person’s chair was threatening and unacceptable, and took the matter up with her union.

She made a formal complaint against the supervisor, but during the subsequent investigation by a human resources manager, Kevin Cullen, a dispute arose over access to CCTV footage which he suggested showed the incident was not so as serious as she claimed.

She said she was told she could only see the footage if she admitted she was wrong, although a letter entered as evidence suggests she was told watching the footage might make her realize she was wrong. She said she felt she wasn’t being listened to.

However, no initial agreement could be reached as to when and where they could view the footage, with Ms Dowling refusing to view it at the post office branch while the colleague was in the building.

She later made a complaint about Mr Cullen’s handling of the case and took the original matter to the WRC and reported it to the Health and Safety Authority before internal procedures had been exhausted.

After taking sick leave following the incident – Ms Dowling was certified by her GP as suffering from stress and never returned to her role – her sick pay was halved after 92 days of absence in -a period of 12 months, and the payments were later stopped altogether.

Ultimately, the court found, however, that the halving of sick pay was in accordance with her terms of employment and its termination came after her claim was lodged with the WRC and therefore could not be taken into account. It found that there was no evidence that she had been penalized for filing the complaint.

In relation to the harassment case, the court found that the age-related comments made were inappropriate.

“In this case,” the court said, “the plaintiff’s evidence was that she felt ridiculed and made to feel different because of her age. In response, respondent claims that the supervisor believed the comment to be a light-hearted remark that was made entirely off the cuff and without malice. He apologized fully and sincerely, there and then.

“Whether the comment was made as part of workplace banter or playful teasing is irrelevant to the impact of the comment on the plaintiff, which had the effect of violating her dignity at work,” the court said in its decision.

It said the appropriate remedy was compensation and considered that the €1,000 the WRC ordered An Post to pay was appropriate. It was supported that decision and rejected his appeal.