Member of the Traveller community discriminated in the workplace

The Complainant, a member of the Traveller community, claimed he was discriminated against during his interview and employment with the Respondent. He stated that at interview in May 2024 the Managing Director (MD) asked detailed questions (about his address, family name, and father) which he believed were to identify his Traveller background. During his short employment he alleged hearing the director use slurs such as “pikeys,” “tinkers,” and “itinerant”. Other staff also asked if he was related to certain Travellers. He said the remarks, though not directed at him, were disheartening and led him to resign a month later. He further alleged underpayment, presenting payslips showing €80 per day (€400 weekly) for roughly 41 hours, equating to about €9.76 per hour i.e. below the statutory minimum wage. He linked this low pay to the discriminatory questioning at interview.

The Respondent (MD) denied discrimination but accepted much of the Complainant’s factual account. He admitted asking about the Complainant’s parents at interview. He said that in a small town it was normal to learn a Complainant’s background to judge reliability and denied any intent to identify Traveller heritage. He disputed slurs and claimed no knowledge that the Complainant was a Traveller until after resignation. He maintained such questions were asked of all candidates. The MD conceded he might have used the word “pikey”, could not recall saying “tinkers”, and said any “itinerant” remark was joking. He acknowledged that such terms “shouldn’t happen but did”. The MD said the Complainant received standard employment policies, though he may not have been given a manual due to a trial period. On pay, the MD stated the €400 weekly rate was a one-month trial salary with a planned increase to €600, denying any link to Traveller status or discrimination and noting other staff were paid similarly.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant proved facts showing discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. At interview the MD asked about his parents and whether he was related to other Travellers. Workplace use of slurs, though not directed at him, reinforced a discriminatory environment. The Respondent failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination. The complaint was upheld and €7,500 compensation awarded, along with directions to implement equal opportunity policies and staff training. The related national minimum wage claim failed because the Complainant had not first sought the mandatory written statement of average hourly pay under s.23, leaving the WRC without jurisdiction.

Employers should:

• Employers should design interviews with clear, job-related criteria and avoid questions about family background, ethnicity, or place of origin. Even casual inquiries can imply bias and shift the legal burden of proof.  
   
  
• Derogatory terms or “jokes,” even when not directed at an employee, can create a hostile environment. Employers must set zero-tolerance policies for discriminatory language.  
   
  
• Maintain an up-to-date equal opportunities policy and employee handbook. Provide these documents to all staff and obtain signed acknowledgements. Records of training and policy distribution help demonstrate compliance if a claim arises. 
   
  
• Deliver equality and diversity training for managers and staff. Audit recruitment and workplace practices regularly to identify and correct any systemic risks of unconscious or indirect discrimination.

The full case can be found here.