Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Pawelec and others -v- ARKIL Limited [2012]
Pawelec and others -v- ARKIL Limited [2012]
Published on: 24/01/2013
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discrimination Pay
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This is a complaint by six Polish construction workers, who worked for the employer for at least four years prior to their dismissal in May 2009. The first-named did not make representations to the Tribunal and the case proceeded on the basis of submissions by the remaining five complainants. The Tribunal dismissed complaints on equal pay, discrimination in training, victimisation and discriminatory and victimisatory dismissals but found in favour of the complainants on discriminatory terms of employment and harassment.

In terms of harassment, there was evidence from the employer’s Irish employees that the complainant’s line manager was prone to ‘fiery outbursts’. The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the complainants that these included racist abuse. The Tribunal accepted that the complainants could not have been expected to use the company’s grievance procedure as this would have involved a complaint to their line manager, or then to his manager, who was a close associate of the line manager, and ultimately to the company’s managing director. The Tribunal accepted their evidence that they did complain to a Polish engineer in the company and that was as much as could have been expected of them.

A key issue on discriminatory terms of employment, in relation to accommodation provided by the employer, was that their line manager and his manager purchased a house, which they rented to the employer company which, in turn, rented it to the complainants. The Tribunal accepted that this was a discriminatory arrangement. It found that the two managers had exploited this situation through charging excessive rents and, given its conclusions on harassment, that their line manager had threatened them with dismissal when they objected to the arrangement. The Tribunal concluded that this dependent relationship would have been “most unusual” in the case of an Irish worker and so that these were discriminatory arrangements, in which the employer colluded through the rental arrangements and was, in any event, vicariously liable for the acts of the two managers.

On the basis of these two sets of conclusions, each of the five remaining complainants was awarded (i) €5000 for the harassment endured and (ii) €10,000 for other discrimination in relation to his conditions of employment.


http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/Database-of-Decisions/2012/Employment-Equality-Decisions/DEC-E2012-122-Full-Case-Report.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 24/01/2013
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 →