A SHOP HAS BEEN cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked if they had anything larger when they tried to pay for €68 worth of goods with 10 and 20 cent coins.

The father of the two children – a boy and a girl – submitted a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on their behalf and alleged that his children were discriminated against as they were members of the Traveler community.  

The identities of both parties have been anonymised due to the involvement of children.

It had been alleged that the two children were refused service at the shop because they were members of the Travelling community and that the children had suffered embarrassment with both locals and friends as a result of the incident.

In a decision published today, the WRC said the complaint was “not well founded” and that the cashier was “reasonable” in asking if the children had larger value coins to complete the purchase.

The shop in question is family-owned, has operated for over 60 years and employs 70 people.

The incident happened on 22 December, 2023, which the shop said is one of its busiest days of the year in the run-up to Christmas.

The shop said that at around 1.30pm, two children approached a cashier with a number of items which totalled €68 and that the children initially paid in €1 and €2 coins, as well as 10c and 20c coins.

The shop said the cashier counted the coins and it came to €26.80 and that this “took some time to count”.

It is the shop’s position that when the cashier asked if the children had the rest of the money, the young girl said she had more coins in a small purse.

The cashier said the purse contained a large amount of 10c and 20c coins and that she then asked the girl if she had notes to make up the difference – the young girl did not but said she would ask her father who was in the car.

The young girl went outside and returned with her father and the cashier said a “large queue was building up at her till” in the meantime.

The shop said the children’s father “took issue with the cashier” and that the cashier “found him to be very confrontational”.

The shop said the father asked why the cashier “wasn’t taking their money” but that the cashier “made it clear she was not refusing to take his money but asked if he had any notes as it was a very busy day”.

The shop said it has CCTV footage which shows the father “holding large denomination notes during the interaction with the cashier but chose not to use them”.

One of the store managers was then approached by the father, who said the cashier had “refused to take the coins”.

The manager said that while the complainant “had notes, they wished to pay in full using coins”.

The manager is said to have explained that given the time of the year, it would be difficult for the cashier to count that amount of coinage and asked if the father could “count out the exact amount in coins or count it into five or ten euro batches”.

The shop also offered coin bags to count the monies into but said the complainant again argued that the shop was “refusing to accept our payment”.

The shop said it tried to find a solution and that an apology was offered and that a voucher was also offered as a “goodwill gesture” for the “misunderstanding” but this was refused.

The shop said it had never had a complaint against them and that the complainant was “not treated in a manner less favourable than any other customer”.

The shop added that when it was clear there was an intention to use small coins to pay for a balance of up to €40, the cashier asked if the balance could be paid with notes and that this was “interpreted” as a refusal to serve.

WRC Adjudication Officer Peter O’Brien said the “core issue” is whether the cashier deliberately did not complete the transaction because they were members of the Traveller community.

O’Brien deemed it was “reasonable and not prejudicial of the cashier, with a queue building up, to ask the minors had they larger value coins or notes to complete their purchases”.

He noted that the transaction was put on hold while the children went out to their father and that from the evidence supplied by the cashier, she never refused to complete the purchase but asked if there was a more convenient way to pay.

O’Brien described this as a “normal exchange between a cashier and customer” and that from the available evidence, the transaction was cancelled at the father’s request.

He also noted that repeated offers of apology or attempts to resolve the situation were not accepted.

It was deemed that the request to pay with larger value notes or coins “could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day”.

The WRC concluded that the cashier did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct and that her actions were “reasonable” and “could have applied to any member of society she was engaging with in the circumstances described”.