The respondent in this case does not appear to have engaged with the Tribunal at any stage.  The complainant, a Polish national, began working on reception in September 2008, where she continues to work, and three years later went on maternity leave.  She asserted that on her return from maternity leave she was not given the same hours as she had received prior to that absence.  She raised the matter with HR and it appears that her manager reacted badly to this.  He told her that she was only guaranteed 24 hours per week in her contract.  She replied that this was a minimum and in any event she had worked full time hours for three years prior to her maternity leave.  The manager also told her that her English was not good enough to permit her to work during the day even though she had worked daytime shifts three days per week during the period she had worked full-time hours.  Her manager also said, she asserts, that she would need more time with her baby.

The complainant then raised a grievance with her employer which specifically mentioned her belief that she felt discriminated against, and she asserts that her manager, on becoming aware of her grievance, threatened her with looking through the CCTV footage for possible wrongdoings to use against her.  Some days after her appeal against the outcome of her grievance she was called to a disciplinary meeting in the course of which her manager accused her of selling alcohol to non-residents.  He was unable to adduce evidence to support the allegations and in his conclusions the Equality Officer states that the complainant was able to show that it was, in fact, a resident who had been sold the alcohol and the disciplinary proceedings were dropped.

It is noteworthy that the Equality Officer found the complainant to be a credible witness and on that basis accepted her direct evidence in respect of all allegations and found that she had discharged the initial probative burden required of her.  He held that she had returned from maternity leave on less favourable working conditions and took as significant the fact that her maternity leave cover person was left in place after her return.  Consequently he found that the complainant was entitled to succeed on the gender ground.

The Equality Officer also found that the complainant’s English (as assessed during the hearing) was fluent.  As the complainant was not assigned day shifts because of her English, now found to be fluent, the Equality Officer upheld her allegations of discrimination on the race ground.

When addressing the so-called disciplinary process the Equality Officer found that the complainant’s grievance to her employer constituted a protected action within the meaning of section 74(2)(a) of the Acts and that the manager’s actions constituted adverse treatment within the meaning of 74(2).  Consequently, the complainant’s allegation of victimisation was also upheld.

The complainant was awarded €21,000, one year’s salary, in compensation for the discrimination found to have occurred.  She was also awarded €42,000 in compensation for the victimisation bringing the total to €63,000.

This large award, full two year’s salary, for victimisation reflects the Tribunal’s standard approach when victimisation is upheld because victimisation is seen as an interference into a complainant’s statutory entitlement to make a complaint in the first place.

Why is this case of interest?