Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Julian Andoo v Pagewell Concession (ILAC) Ltd.
Julian Andoo v Pagewell Concession (ILAC) Ltd.
Published on: 28/01/2014
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Bernadette Treanor
Bernadette Treanor
Background

The complaint was submitted on the family status ground but as the complainant and respondent argued the case on the civil status ground the Equality Officer addressed the complaint on both grounds. 

 

The complainant and his wife were both employed by the respondent but in different locations.  The complainant’s wife, before going on maternity leave asked if her husband could move to her store for family convenience and the respondent agreed.  It was agreed that a comment was made to the complainant by a manager in respect of a policy that married couples could not work together.  The Equality Officer found that the policy in fact stated that related persons may not work together but this is decided on a case by case basis. 

 

The decision very usefully details what the Equality Officer considered when addressing contradictory oral evidence and made a number of findings of fact. 

 

Ultimately he found that discriminatory dismissal had not occurred in respect of either ground but upheld the complaint of discriminatory treatment on the civil status ground on foot of the comment.  The complainant was awarded €500 as the Equality Officer was of the view that he was not left at a material disadvantage by the discriminatory treatment.

 

Why is this case of interest?

  • The Equality Officer’s mention of contradictory oral evidence was in paragraph 5.4

“When considering the oral evidence of each of the witnesses (especially when contradictory). I am particularly mindful of the credibility or otherwise of the individuals in terms of their demeanour while testifying; their level of recollection of various incidents/facts; the existence or non-existence of bias, interest or other motive; the consistency of their evidence – within their own accounts and when the accounts are compared with one another; and the plausibility of their accounts.  I have also taken into account the issues raised by cross-examination by the various representatives.” 

 

Read the Full Case Decision Here:

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/November/DEC-E2013-151.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 28/01/2014
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →