The Complainant worked for the Respondent, an English language college, in several different roles, from the 3rd of October 2016 until she resigned on the 21st of July 2021.   The Complainant submitted ten complaints to the WRC.

The Complainant was working part-time in student support, alongside working in the marketing department.  The contract provided that the Complainant’s rate of commission was 10% of sales. However, on the 21st of November 2018, when the Complainant requested payment of commission in respect of her 2016 sales, the Finance Director and the CEO said that her contract was incorrect and  her rate of commission was not 10% of sales. The Finance Director alleged it was not his signature on the Complainant’s contract of employment.  The Complainant submitted she did not receive her commission of 10% after waiting for two years.

On the 11th of September 2018, the Complainant started working as a receptionist. Her promotion was conditional on her continuing to work in the Latin American marketing department. In November 2018, she received a copy of her new contract. At a meeting on the 13th of December 2018, her line manager changed her commission rate from 10% of sales to €100 euro for course renewals and €150 for new courses.  The Complainant was told that if she did not accept the change in her rate of commission, the Respondent would only pay commission on new courses and would not pay any commission on renewals.

The Complainant claimed she was treated less favourably than other staff members.

The Adjudication Officer noted that "The complainant has demonstrated she was treated less favourably than [the two women] had been when they were in a comparable situation to the complainant within the meaning of the Acts. The only difference between the complainant and the comparators was that the comparators were of a different race."

The Complainant further submitted she was repeatedly victimised by the Respondent from February 2020. The Complainant’s email account had been blocked and it remained blocked until she resigned.

The Complainant further alleged she had been doing some printing in the Respondent’s premises when the Respondent’s HR Manager approached her in a very intimidating and threatening manner. The CEO allegedly stood very close to the Complainant, blocking her only exit. The HR Director asked her if she had printed documentation that belonged to the Respondent. The Complainant submitted to the WRC that the HR Director informed her in a "hostile manner" that she was not allowed to print any data from the Respondent organisation.

The Complainant submitted further that the HR Director and the CEO threatened her saying that she would be penalised as she was committing a crime under GDPR legislation.

The Respondent stated it was entitled to investigate the sending of information, in particular sensitive data, for the purpose of the Data Protection Act and GDPR and/or printing of same by the Complainant.

The Complainant was suspended with pay.

At the hearing, the Respondent submitted a spreadsheet which purported to show the amount of commission due to the Complainant and the dates on which it was paid. The Adjudication Officer’s view was that this spreadsheet was a complete “work of fiction” which contained clear and apparent errors, including entries in relation to the years 1900, 1902 and 1904, inconsistency between the column headings and the data contained within the columns; and handwritten entries on the spreadsheets.

The Complainant was awarded the sum of €42,849 in compensation in total. This was to account for the Complainant’s several complaints including victimisation, discrimination, unpaid commission, terms of contract change, and penalisation.

Guidance for Employers

 In order to prove a valid prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the ground of race, pursuant to section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts, the Complainant needs to identify a comparator of a different race who received more favourable treatment than she did.   This is specified in section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, where discrimination is defined as “a person treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)”, which includes the ground of race on which the complaint was brought.  
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/august/adj-00026853.html