Unfair dismissal is, of course, not the only jurisdiction of which employers need to be aware if dismissing employees. The complainant in this case, Mr Matuszak, submitted a complaint to the Equality Tribunal in which he stated that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment, harassment and discriminatory dismissal by the Respondent on the ground of race. These claims were investigated by an Equality Officer who decided that the claims were not well-founded. Subsequently the complainant appealed this decision.

The complainant is a Polish national and worked for the respondent. The claimant claimed that he raised an issue with the respondent with regards to the production line on which he was working and the respondent subsequently summarily dismissed him from employment. The respondent didn’t deny that proper procedures were not followed in this dismissal. However, the respondent did note that it had dismissed other employees in the same fashion, regardless of the employees nationality.

Section 85(a) places the burden of proof in cases of discrimination upon the complainant. The complainant held that whilst the respondent had fired other employees in the same fashion, Irish workers that had infringed the company policy were treated in a more lenient way; he presented evidence to the court of three cases of Irish employees who were treated in a less harsh manner.

The Court held, therefore, that from the evidence that had been presented to the Court the complainant had succeeded in establishing facts from which an inference could be drawn.

The Court held that "the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving it complied with the Acts when it dismissed the complainant'. On the basis of this conclusion the Court ordered the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €15,000 for the breach of his rights under the Equality Acts.
http://bit.ly/1jVitWx

Practical lessons from this case:

This case reminds us that once the complainant has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case, the burden of proof then transfers to the Employer to prove that they comply with the Acts. Arguing equally bad treatment of all employees can be a defence but it failed in this case because the complainant could should inconsistent behaviour in relation to other nationalities.