The Equality Tribunal published 22 decisions recently under the Employment Equality Acts, 7 of which were successful in whole or in part. These are reviewed below beginning as always with the successful cases.

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS UPHELD OR PART-UPHELD:

1. DEC-E2010 -026 An Employee -v- A Restaurant.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment.
Award: €500 for Discrimination

The complainant claimed discrimination on the ground of his national origins in that he was treated less favourably than another person with different national origins would have been treated in relation to access to an interview contrary to his pertinent experience. Furthermore, it was submitted that he has suffered discrimination in relation to unlawful prevention from access to employment which the complainant contended was a direct result of his nationality. In particular, it was submitted, the complainant was treated less favourably than his Irish counterparts vis-a-vis access to employment and selection for interview by the respondent.

The equality Officer was provided with no satisfactory explanation as to why the complainant was not offered an opportunity to attend an interview. She accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the brief conversation between the complainant and a named employee on the phone was conducted in such a manner that gave rise to the complainant's belief that his country of origin was the reason why he was told that there were no vacancies. €500 was awarded.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2251


2. DEC-E2010-025 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Disability - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal - Reasonable Accommodation.
Award: €27,000 for Discrimination

The complainant commenced work as a fork lift driver/general operative in the respondent's warehouse in or about February 2005. His duties included picking and packing products, driving the forklift to get goods down from the shelves and transferring them to the dispatch area. He said that he also did some dispatch work which involved using the computer. He said that he had no problem with the work up until September 2006 when he was asked by his supervisor to dust shelves. The complainant submitted that he has asthma for about three to four years before he joined the respondent company. He said that it had not caused him any problem in this employment up until he was asked to dust shelves with a feather duster. He asked for a mask and it was supplied but the mask was only a paper mask and it was not sufficient as the dusting created clouds of dust which was too excessive for his condition. He told his supervisor that he could not continue dusting. He argued he was eventually dismissed because of this grievance.

The respondent denied discriminating on grounds of disability but his evidence was not convincing. In particular, the Equality Officer noted that the respondent said that he did not discuss dusting with the complainant at the final meeting. In evidence the respondent stated that the complainant was excused from dusting and if he had continued in the employment he would no longer have to dust. If the respondent had no problem about the complainant's continuing in the employment, the Equality Officer found it surprising he did not give him this information about dusting at the final meeting. This lead her to believe that the respondent did not want the employment relationship to continue and she awarded €27k, half a year's salary.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2252

3. DEC-E2010-032 2 Employees -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal - Victimisatory Dismissal.
Award for Employee A: €5,000 for Harassment and €15,000 for Victimisatory Dismissal.

The Equality Officer in this case found one of the employees to "be a very credible witness" when he alleged he was subjected to racial harassment and that he was victimised by being dismissed shortly after making a complaint about the harassment. He was awarded €20k in total.


4. DEC-E2010-033 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Gender - Discriminatory Treatment.
Award: €500 for Discrimination.

The claimant in this case alleged the respondent said at interview, 'We don't employ women as salespeople. It just doesn't work.' She submitted Mr. A went on to say said that a woman worked previously with them as a car salesperson but was not good as she did not follow through on paperwork and she left of her own accord. She maintained that Mr. A also said that 'women selling cars was like men selling lingerie'.

The respondent did not bring Mr A to the tribunal to rebut the allegations and the Quality Officer awarded €500.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2254


5. DEC-E2010-034 An Employee -v- An Employer.

Ground/Issue: Age - Equal Pay - Discriminatory Treatment.
Preliminary decision only.

At the time of lodging this complaint, the complainant was 28 years of age and Comparator Z was 45 years old. The respondent submitted the rate of pay was set by Comparator Z and not by the respondent. It reflected what Comparator Z could get in the marketplace at that time. The Equality Officer did not accept the arguments. Consequently, the respondent cannot avail of the defence set out at Section 29 (5) of the Acts.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2255


6. DEC-E2010-037 2 Employees -v- An Employer.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal.
Award for Employee A: €1,000 for Discriminatory Treatment.

The respondent discriminated against one of the Lithuanian claimants on grounds of race in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts in respect of those conditions of employment connected with his contract of employment i.e. his level of English was poor and he was not given a contract of employment in a language that was easily understood by him, nor was it translated for him. €1000 was awarded.

7. DEC-E2010-038 2 Employees -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment.
Award for Employee A: €2,500 for Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainants were painter decorators of Lithuanian origin. One complainant stated that a number of other non-Irish national workers (of Latvian and Lithuanian origin) were dismissed on this date whereas a number of Irish employees were retained in employment by the respondent on the site where he had been working. The respondent was not there to rebut the allegations and the Equality Officer awarded €2,500 in compensation for the discriminatory dismissal.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2257


EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS NOT UPHELD:

8. DEC-E2010-021 An Employee -v- An Electrical Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Equal Pay

The claimant failed to turn up and the case was dismissed.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2258

9. DEC-E2010-022 Ms. Z -v- An Airline Company.

Ground/Issue: Jurisdiction - Time Limits.

The Equality Officer found:

(i) that the complainant failed to establish reasons which both explain the delay for her referring her complaint to the Tribunal and offer a justifiable excuse for it. It follows therefore that she is not entitled to avail of section 77(5)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007.
(ii) that the complainant did not refer her complaint to the Tribunal within the time limits prescribed at section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate the remainder (substantive aspects) of her complaint.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2259

10. DEC-E2010-023 2 Employees -v- A Construction Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment - Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainants stated that their employment was terminated on 20th March, 2007 when they refused to accede to their employer's request to work for an extra hour (after 5 p.m.) without any additional pay. The complainants submitted that they were dismissed without any proper reason or procedures. One claimant stated that he had been dismissed by the respondent on a number of occasions prior to this date but that he had been taken back to work on each of these previous occasions. The complainants claim that they were discriminatorily dismissed by the respondent on the grounds of their Latvian nationality.

The respondent did not attend, nor was it represented at the Hearing of the complaints, in fact it did not engage with the Tribunal at any level following the referral of the complaints.

However, there was evidence that the employer had no Irish employees but many non-Irish employees, all of whom, it was alleged were treated badly. The Equality Officer stated that "unfavourable treatment, in the absence of evidence of less favourable treatment, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts." The claims were dismissed.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2260

11. DEC-E2010-024 An Employee -v- A State Body.

Ground/ Issue: Gender - Discriminatory Treatment - Victimisation.

The complainant made a written submission. The complainant stateed that some years prior to making an application to the respondent for a position as senior executive planner with Donegal County Council, he had taken a case against a named individual, Ms A, before the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland. Ms A subsequently entered employment with Donegal County Council, and sat on the interview board for the position to which the complainant applied. It is his contention that by not advising him of this fact, the respondent victimised him.

The Equality Officer said, "the question arises whether lack of knowledge of the facts referred to above, in a situation like a job competition where no candidate is advised of the composition of the interview board, can be victimisation. A second, related question, is whether the respondent would have been in possession of the relevant knowledge to impart or withhold, as alleged, from the complainant."

The Equality Officer found in the negative on both counts and dismissed the complaint.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2261

12. DEC-E2010-027 An Employee -v- A Government Department.

Ground/Issue: Disability - Discriminatory Treatment - Reasonable Accommodation

The Equality Officer found the complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances of this case and found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2262

13. DEC-E2010-028 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment.

The complainant is Polish and worked for the respondent as a cleaner at the time of her submission. She submitted that she did not receive a contract of employment, in Polish or at all, that she did not receive a copy of the staff handbook in Polish, and that she received no health and safety documentation. She further complained that she was not advised that the JLC for the cleaning industry applied to her. She contended that she was subjected to a disciplinary hearing after making complaints about working conditions, but that she was not advised of her rights with regard to disciplinary processes, in particular the right to union representation.

The respondent furnished evidence to the contrary and the Equality Officer found in favour of the respondent.

Both parties submitted written evidence only.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2263

14. DEC-E2010-029 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Equal Pay - Discriminatory Treatment.

The complainant, who is Nepalese, failed to get part of his complaint lodged in time. In relation to an equal pay element, the respondent successfully argued that a share option grant given to an Irish comparator was not given to the complainant because he, unlike the comparator, was not promoted at the relevant time that the share option was given.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2264

15. DEC-E2010-030 An Employee -v- A Haulage Firm.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant, a Latvian national, submitted that he was treated less favourably on the ground of his race in relation his hours, his contract of employment, health and safety training and documentation, and his pay. Furthermore, the complainant submitted that he was dismissed without any proper procedure while he was on certified sick leave. It was submitted that the complainant has very limited English.

In relation to the alleged dismissal the respondent submitted that the complainant simply did not turn up for work. It was submitted that he had never told his employers he was unwell or that he was going to a doctor. The respondent submitted that efforts had been made to contact the complainant on the phone but, at first, the calls were cut off by the complainant and later, the phone would just ring out. It was submitted that the complainant's colleague initially told the respondent that he did not know where the complainant was.

A few days later, it was submitted, the complainant's friend and colleague told the foreman that the complainant was sick and that he would return the following Monday. The following Monday the complainant's friend told the respondent, when asked, that the complainant was sick and would return the next Monday. This went on for some weeks until the respondent employed another person to carry out the complainant's duties. It was also submitted that by this stage the complainant's colleague had told the foreman that the complainant was "on the beer".

The Equality Officer preferred the respondent's evidence and found against the claimant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2265

16. DEC-E2010-031 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Gender - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant alleged she was dismissed because she was pregnant. The Equality Officer preferred the evidence of the respondent that they had no other suitable alternative work for her and put her on health and safety leave.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2266

17. DEC-E2010-035 An Employee -v- Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission.

Ground/Issue: Age - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment.

The claim was brought outside the time limits specified in S. 77(5) of the Acts.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2267

18. DEC-E2010-036 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment.

The complainant submitted that his ethnic origin is Eurasian and that he was previously a Malaysian national.

The complainant submitted that he was employed by the respondent from 7 June 2006 on a nine month contract. About one month into the contract he volunteered to move from his original position to provide maternity leave cover in another section. The complainant submitted that when he joined the new section, it became clear to him that he was not wanted: the person who trained him in treated him with impatience, and the team leader initially ignored him but then told the department head that she didn't get along well with him.

The Equality Officer found no evidence that the treatment complained of had anything to do with the complainant's race/nationality.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2268

19. DEC-E2010-039 An Employee -v- An Educational Establishment.

Ground/Issue: Gender - Discriminatory Treatment - Victimisation.

The complainant is an Assistant Principal. He alleged in writing that he and other male colleagues were excluded from management meetings for a period from 2004 to 2006, whereas female colleagues attended these meetings. He further alleged that he was denied training. He specifically complained that one female colleague was given the opportunity to train in specific fields, and that her teaching hours were significantly reduced to facilitate both her training and administrative experience.

The respondent also made a written submission and denied discriminating against, or victimising the complainant. In particular, the respondent denied that the complainant was excluded from management meetings, but asserted that the complainant chose not to attend these meetings. The respondent also denied that the specified female colleague received preferential treatment in terms of her teaching load, citing specific working conditions applying to that staff member, and further argued that since other female staff members were in the same position vis-à-vis her as the complainant was, the situation cannot be said to amount to discrimination on account of the complainant's gender. The respondent denied that the complainant was denied training opportunities, and stated that the specified female staff member obtained the training on the FETAC system in her own time and on her own initiative.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2269

20. DEC-E2010-040 An Employee -v- A Construction Company.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment.

On investigation by the Equality Officer all of the complainant's allegations were dismissed e.g. the relevant terms and conditions were provided to him in a language he understood (i.e. English); and the respondent provided very convincing evidence that the complainant had been provided with health and safety training.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2270

21. DEC-E2010-041 An Employee -v- An Employer.

Ground/Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal.

With regard to the allegations of discrimination in relation to training and conditions of employment the Equality Officer accepted that the respondent considered the complainant to be on trial and that the short term and temporary nature of his employment is the reason for any difference in treatment between the complainant and the other two employees. He concluded that the complainant was treated in the same way as any other employee would have been in a comparable situation and found that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to training and conditions of employment.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2271

22. DEC-E2010-042 An Employee -v- An Employer.

Ground/Issue: Age - Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant submitted that she had been employed by the respondent for more than ten years when on 17 July 2007, a manager of the respondent's took her aside and said: "Perhaps your time in this business is up." The complainant took this to mean that she was too old to continue in her position. The complainant felt undermined by this remark, and felt she had no alternative but to resign her position.

The respondent submitted that it did not know why the complainant left her employment, and that the complainant never complained about any aspect of her work over the course of a ten year working relationship. The respondent further disputed alleged ageism and pointed out that she is older than the complainant (the age difference between the respondent and the complainant is five years.)

Unsurprisingly, the complainant did not succeed.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2272