The complainant is a Polish national who described a litany of mistreatment at the hands of the employer including staff deliberately walking on floors she had just cleaned, telling her to carry heavy items up several floors then telling her to take them back, staff hiding her cleaning materials, being accused of stealing, being required to purchase items for her employer and not being paid for them etc.  She asserted that soon after she complained about her payslips her hours were cut to 8 hours per week.  When she asked about her payslips the owner allegedly responded “for all the good they would be to you, you might as well wipe your arse with them”. She alleged that these incidents amounted to harassment of her on the gender and race grounds.  The Equality Officer was satisfied that the respondent would not have made such a remark to an Irish male employee.

It appears that the respondent was given every opportunity but failed to attend the Hearing although its representative was in attendance.  The Decision includes a quotation from the EAT’s decision relating to the complainant’s constructive dismissal claim which includes “It is clear that the respondent did not comply with the vast swathes of legislation designed to regularise the employment relationship.  In addition to the matters complained of by the claimant, the employer apparently had two sets of payslips for the claimant and this matter was completely unexplained by the respondent.”  There is no consideration in the equality Decision as to whether the situation described in the EAT quotation applied to any other employees.  Certainly, if the respondent did not comply with employment requirements generally then arguably that could be the respondent’s general disposition regardless of who asks and the alleged treatment of her could arguably have nothing to do with any of the grounds.

It is unclear how the respondent’s comment, implicitly accepted by the Equality Officer as occurring, is connected with the complainant’s gender or race.   In the alternative, it could be interpreted as a general disposition relating to employment law compliance on the part of the employer.

The respondent’s representative argued that res judicata applied as the complainant was attempting to use the same facts to seek redress under various pieces of legislation but the Equality Officer found that the relevant matters did not constitute a breach of the Employment Equality Acts.  It is unclear whether this means they were considered or stopped.

The Equality Officer found the complainant a cogent witness and found that when the complainant complained about not getting her payslips, as a non-national unaware of her rights, the respondent reduced her hours.  The Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant demonstrated that she was subjected to harassment in the course of her employment which was related to her gender and race resulting in a very demeaning and hostile environment for her.

While there can be no doubt that an environment, as described, would certainly be interpreted as demeaning and hostile it is unclear how the incidents were connected with the complainant’s gender or race.  Some might argue that such a situation relates more to bullying and inappropriate behaviour generally.  Nothing in the Decision appears to create the necessary nexus to link unfavourable treatment to the relevant grounds although, as always, I note that it is not always possible for an Equality Officer to detail all of the evidence presented.

The complainant asserted that following her case before the Rights Commissioners she was presented with cheques and asked to sign a document in full and final settlement.  The complainant asserted that this amounted to victimisation of her.  However, on examining the document the Equality Officer found that it related to the Right’s Commissioner issue only and was satisfied that the complainant did not suffer any adverse treatment as a result of her equality complaint.  The allegations of victimisation were not upheld.  In terms of equal pay, the complainant had not named an actual comparator and on that basis that aspect of the claim also failed.

 Why is this case of interest?