Mary Higgins -v- Permanent TSB DEC-E2010-084
Discrimination, Gender, Family Status.


1. Claim

The dispute concerned a claim by Ms. Higgins that she was discriminated against indirectly when the respondent failed to provide her with part time work on 15 November 2005.


2. Complainant's Case

The complainant is employed as a Programmer/Analyst in the respondent's IT department based in Cork Airport Business Park. She is married with 5 children ranging in ages, in 2005, between 1 year and 9 years. She commenced employment in 1986 and has worked with the bank through its various existences arising from both merger and sale. Various collective staff agreements were introduced during that period, notably an agreement in 1990 which incorporated provisions relating to part-time and temporary staff and harmonisation agreements following the acquisition of TSB Bank assets and liabilities by Irish Life and Permanent in 2001.

The complainant applied for parental leave in 2000 and 2002 but these initial applications were refused as the complainant wanted to take the leave in broken form. In December 2002 she was granted the leave in broken form. Also in 2002 she applied for a voluntary severance scheme offered by the respondent but this was also refused.

Following the birth of her fifth child in 2004 the complainant experienced significant health difficulties. Prior to her return from maternity leave she enquired as to the possibility of part-time work but was informed that no applications were being considered as a new system of flexible working patterns was being developed. The complainant again applied for parental leave which was granted. In December 2004 the respondent invited her to apply under the newly introduced Alternative Working Pattern Policy. Her application was refused in writing on 5 January 2005 citing the number of applications received and the business needs of the Bank.

The complainant eventually took a career break.


3. The Respondent's Case

The respondent said that the complainant objected to the fact that the scheme concerned offered part-time work subject to review at twelve month periods. The complainant never pursued the option of job-sharing. Her application for permanent part-time working was properly considered but was refused. The complainant failed to appeal against the refusal through the normal established grievance procedures within the bank.


4. Conclusions and Decision

Although the Equality Officer found that the complainant had failed to establish a prima case of direct and indirect discrimination on the family status ground she did find in favour of the complainant on the gender ground.

Of particular importance was the disparity of treatment between a male comparator allowed flexible working and the complainant. The Equality Officer found that the, "...decision making process in selecting candidates for the award of alternative working patterns was unfair and lacking in transparency. The process operated to the advantage of a man in that the man was granted an alternative attendance pattern. The process operated to the disadvantage of the complainant, a female, in that her application for an alternative attendance pattern was refused. I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the gender ground in relation to the selection process used to assess and grant alternate working patterns for 2005 which the respondent has failed to rebut."

The complainant was awarded €45,000.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2312