An eBay customer support agent who quit after being written up for failing to explain four minutes of inactivity on his computer to his manager’s satisfaction has claimed he was being “punished” for earlier workplace complaints.
“Anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance,” his former manager told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing into the worker’s constructive dismissal claim this week.
The claimant, Eanna Donoghue, maintains he was “unfairly treated” by management at eBay Europe Services Ltd to the point that he was forced to quit his job fielding priority calls and emails from eBay’s high-value customers in March 2024, after nearly seven years’ service.
Mr Donoghue quit on 5 March 2024, the day he was told a company appeals officer had decided to leave a written warning for “work avoidance” on his personnel file – effectively barring him from seeking promotion for a time, he said.
The tribunal heard Mr Donoghue’s former line manager, Niamh Seoighe, had written to him on Thursday 21 December 2024 telling him that she had observed on a screen recording that he closed off a customer issue by email in a minute and 36 seconds, but left the page open for a few minutes.
“I couldn’t take it any longer,” Mr Donoghue said, telling the WRC the reprimand for “work avoidance” followed a period when he had “people dying left, right and centre” in his personal life, including a friend who “went into the river in Navan”.
“For some reason that was just ignored. A perfect record for seven years, and she [his line manager] still thought it was reasonable and fair to give me a warning on that incident,” he said.
Mr Donoghue’s position was that the reprimand over the four-minute inactivity incident in January 2024, and informal “verbal counselling” on 28 November 2023 for lateness, was linked to filing grievances, starting with complaints against two operations managers on 16 November that year.
He said he was aggrieved to get “a warning for going to the bathroom for four minutes, for not closing off an email” when he claimed he had called out people “doing ten times worse” in the past.
He said this history contributed to his state of mind when he quit.
Counsel for the respondent, Mark Curran BL, appearing instructed by Avril Daly of Mason Hayes and Curran LLP, said Mr Donoghue’s complaints concerned “historical issues”.
Mr Donoghue withdrew the first set of complaints and quit before a second complaint had been investigated, he added.
Cross-examining Mr Donoghue, Mr Curran said the claimant’s line manager Ms Seoighe, had asked him for an explanation for the idle time on 21 December 2023, and again later in January 2024.
Counsel said it took the further follow-up from Ms Seoighe for Mr Donoghue to reply with an email referring to the possibility that he was taking a personal call about the river fatality at the time in the correspondence, and the claimant agreed.
“You’ve admitted you broke the policy,” counsel said.
“I told her that there was a man missing – my head [was] all over the place,” Mr Donoghue said.
Mr Donaghue’s position during a disciplinary meeting had been that he “forgot to close the email” before taking a break, and that he might have gone to get a cup of tea, Mr Curran said.
“To this day I’m not sure,” Mr Donaghue said. “I took a couple of calls in this time,” he said.
“You did say you took a personal call about the person in the river,” he said.
“I took a personal call, but I’m not sure if it was in that four minutes,” the complainant said.
Ms Seoighe said in her evidence that she wrote to Mr Donoghue before Christmas that year looking for an explanation after observing on a screen recording from his computer that he had finished responding to the email but failed to mark himself as available for up to five minutes.
“It was call avoidance,” she said. “If I’m going on the ‘break unpaid’ ops code, I’m being skipped; it’s going to someone else on the team, they’re getting additional calls,” she said.
“[For] idle time on an email, anything over 60 seconds is considered work avoidance,” she said.
Her position was that the issue was exacerbated by Mr Donoghue’s failure to use an hour specifically allotted for him to answer her queries on the downtime and because she “had to follow up several times”.
The written warning given to Mr Donoghue by Ms Seoighe was upheld in a paper-based appeal.
Mr Curran said: “All Mr Donoghue’s evidence has shown is a man unhappy that he’d not been promoted,” adding that the complainant had been “very rash” to resign on foot of the “lowest” sanction available.
He said the claimant had been “completely inconsistent” about the reason for the inactivity.
“It wasn’t just the absence. It was his failure to respond to her in an adequate fashion,” he said.
Mr Curran said Mr Donoghue had failed to meet the “high burden” of proving constructive dismissal, but that even if he had made out his case, he had failed to go and look.
“He did nothing for eight months [after resigning]. That cannot be pinned at the door of the company,” Mr Curran said, arguing any award in the case could be no higher than four weeks’ wages.
Mr Donoghue said if there was any compensation, he would offer it to charity.
“I don’t care about the money,” he said.
He told the WRC he had found work as a motor mechanic in the few weeks.
Adjudicator Eileen Campbell gave Mr Donoghue until April 30 to provide documentary evidence of his job-hunting and said she would give her decision to the parties in due course.
//ENDS
