Recent Equality Tribunal Decisions
Each month we look at and review the decisions from the Equality Tribunal. This provides a valuable insight into the types of discrimination cases before the Tribunal and the decisions that are issued.
The Equality Tribunal published 7 decisions for June 2014.
Employment Equality Decisions Upheld or Part-Upheld:
DEC-E2014-041:Brian Buggle -v- City of Dublin VEC.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2011 – Sections 6, 8 – Age - Employment status – Access to employment – Prima facie case – Burden of proof – Objective justification – EU Directive 2000/78/EC.
Award:€8,000 for distress suffered as a result of discrimination.
DEC-E2014-045:John McAteer -v- South Tipperary County Council.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 – direct discrimination – Section 6(1), less favourable treatment, S. 6(2)(e) – the religion ground, indirect discrimination – Section 22 and 31, Section 8 – discriminatory dismissal, S. 85A – Burden of proof, Manifestation of religion – Council Directive 2000/78, Treaty of Lisbon, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Award: €70,000 in compensation for the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
Employment Equality Decisions Not Upheld:
DEC-E2014-042:Imgrat -v- Noonan Services Group Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998- 2011 – Sections 6, 8 and 79 – Discriminatory treatment – Race – non attendance at Hearing – Prima facie case.
DEC-E2014-043:Helen Malpas -v- Roscommon County Citizens Information Service Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Sections 6 and 8 – Age – Access to employment.
DEC-E2014-044:Teresa Bilas -v- Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Race – Conditions of Employment & Harassment.
DEC-E2014-046:Rimants Varnecks -v- DAR Golf Construction Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts, Discrimination – Race – Dismissal – Conditions of Employment – Non-attendance – No prima facie case
DEC-E2014-047:Mr Emmanuel Ibidokun -v- Veolia Environment Industries Services Branch (Ireland) Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Race – Section 6(2)(h) – Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 – Dismissal.
Adare Human Resource Management Commentary
Case Law from the Equality Tribunal always provides a useful reminder to Employers of the appropriate procedures that they should have in place in order to defend themselves against claims of discriminatory treatment under the Employment Equality Acts.
In June, there were two successful claims leading to awards of €8,000 and €70,000 respectively. The remaining five claims were not upheld. The cases reported cover a number of complaints of discrimination under one or more of the nine ground and related aspects of employment including Access to Employment, Dismissal, Terms and Terms and Conditions of Employment. We have highlighted two specific decisions in June of the Equality Tribunal which are of value in reminding Employers of best practice and their obligations under the Employment Equality Acts.
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion
Employment Equality Decisions Upheld or Part-Upheld:
DEC-E2014-045:John McAteer -v- South Tipperary County Council.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 – direct discrimination – Section 6(1), less favourable treatment, S. 6(2)(e) – the religion ground, indirect discrimination – Section 22 and 31, Section 8 – discriminatory dismissal, S. 85A – Burden of proof, Manifestation of religion – Council Directive 2000/78, Treaty of Lisbon, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Award: €70,000 in compensation for the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
This dispute involved a claim by Mr. John McAteer (the “Complainant”) that he was discriminated against on the religion ground by South Tipperary County Council (the “Respondent”) in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal from the Council, contrary to Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2011.
The Complainant has been employed as civil engineer and was employed by the Respondent from December 2007 having previously worked with North Tipperary County Council for 10 years. He was primarily located in Clonmel Borough Council and he was dismissed on the 30th July 2010. The Complainant was an Evangelical Christian, commonly referred to as a Born Again Christian. In evidence, the Complainant submitted that the tenets of his religion required him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.
The Complainant started work in Clonmel Borough Council in December 2007 and on the 15th of April 2008 he was called to a meeting by the HR officer, Ms. X was told that there was a complaint about him sharing his faith in the office. The Complainant was asked to desist from doing so in the office, which he felt was unfair, particularly the request that that he desist from speaking about his faith during rest periods.
In response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not discriminated against in any respect in relation to his religious beliefs. However, the Respondent submitted that he was guilty of gross misconduct, resulting in his dismissal from employment, in refusing to obey a lawful instruction not to preach to either staff or member of the public during normal working hours i.e. 9am to 5pm and that because of his actions there was a potential that he would bring South Tipperary County Council into disrepute. As part of its submission, the Respondent further submitted that the Complainant had been made aware that if he continued to share his religious beliefs it would seriously undermine his role as Executive Engineer and could result in reluctance on the part of members of the public from interacting with him solely on a professional basis. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant, despite receiving a final written warning, was in breach of his employment contract by not obeying an instruction not to preach his personal religious beliefs. It was submitted that there was a lack of trust that the Complainant would conduct himself in a professional manner when he carried out his duties on behalf of the Council.
Following a further number of alleged incidents outside of lunch hours in which the Complainant was alleged to have been engaging with others regarding his religious beliefs, the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct
In determination of its conclusions, the Tribunal found that no evidence was presented that the Complainant did not carry out his duties on behalf of the Council in an appropriate manner nor did he receive warnings about the quality of his work. The Tribunal further noted that the Respondent did not receive any complaints from members of the public regarding the Complainant and discussions or conversations concerning his faith.
Determination
In determination of its decision, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the Complainant was treated less favourably on the grounds of religion and that a person of a different relation or a person of no religion would not have been treated in similar circumstances as other staff has not had their conversations with members of the public investigated and reported to management. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that “the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.
In the calculation of re-dress, the Equality Officer found in favour of the Complainant, that the Respondent did discriminate against the Complainant on the religion grounds. The effects of the dismissal on the Complainant were very serious and he has only succeeded in getting part-time work since then.
This case provides an important warning to all Employers that the area of Equality is an area of significance to Employers, and one which can present adverse publicity and the risk of claims by both current and former Employees as well as applicants for employment. It also serves as a useful reminder to Employers to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities in relation to equality in the workplace. Aside from the significant compensation which can be awarded, as illustrated in this case, the negative press that can be generated by an equality claim can be extremely harmful to an Employer’s standing.
Any dismissal of an Employee arising wholly or partly from any ground in the Employment Equality Acts, e.g. on the basis of religion, may be viewed as unfair dismissal. In making its determination in this case, the Tribunal found that the Respondent’s decision to restrict the Complainant’s right to manifest his religious beliefs and ultimately dismiss him from employment was not an appropriate or proportionate decision and that the Complainant failed to objectively justification their decisions.
Best Practice Promotion of Non-Discriminatory Practices and Management of Harassment Claims
Employment Equality Decisions Not Upheld:
DEC-E2014-044:Teresa Bilas -v- Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Race – Conditions of Employment & Harassment.
This dispute concerned claims by Ms Teresa Bilas (the “Complainant”) that she was discriminated against by Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland (the “Respondent) on the grounds of race and that she was harassed contrary to the Employment Equality Acts.
The Complainant started working for the Respondent in April 2005 as a Catering Assistant in Newbridge and resigned voluntarily from her role in April 2012. The Complainant contended that she was subjected to ongoing harassment from a manager who she identified at the hearing as Ms A. The Complainant also related a number of instances where she alleged Ms A treated her in a manner that amounted to harassment and that she treated Irish workers differently.
At the hearing, Ms A denied all the allegations and gave evidence that she would have had little direct contact with the Complainant. In evidence, the Complainant referred to the ‘final incident’ in which she was asked to work for the Respondent at another location. The Complainant stated that she was upset when she was unable to locate the correct canteen. In this regard, the Tribunal in its determination found no evidence that the Complainant was treated any differently than any other member of staff of any nationality.
The Complainant contended that she made a number of complaints about the harassment but was unable to present any evidence to demonstrate that she made these complaints whilst she was at work. In evidence however it was submitted that the Complainant made a number of allegations during a period of s sick leave before subsequently resigning the Respondent, in evidence submitted that the Complainant was provided with an opportunity to address her concerns but that she chose not to give the Respondent specific details of her allegations.
The Respondent denied that the Complainant suffered any treatment in relation to her race or harassment and submitted that the Employee was aware of the appropriate steps to follow having confirmed receipt of the Organisation’s Dignity at Work policy and separate Grievance as part of her induction programme.
In conclusion, the Equality Officer found that the Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to her conditions of employment on the race ground, and that the Complainant had also failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment on the race ground.
Despite taking steps to eliminate harassment or claims of discrimination within the workplace, from time to time such complaints may arise. Where a complaint does arise, the Employer must be seen to act fairly in dealing with the issue. Following the correct procedure is fundamental in reducing exposure to future legal claims for compensation in relation to harassment or a claim under one or more of the nine grounds in which it is illegal for an Employer to discriminate. Organisations are advised to always take appropriate steps where a complaint is received.
Organisations are encouraged to have an Equal Opportunities policy in place which seeks to promote equality of opportunity and fair treatment of all Employees. Equally, the Code of Practice related to harassment and sexual harassment outline that every Employer should have in place informal and formal procedures for an Employee to follow in the event of a complaint. The Code also recommends that should a Manager be approached for advice or support in relation to harassment, he/she should be equipped to explain the policy and complaints procedure clearly to the person seeking advice.
In finding in favour of the Respondent in this case, the Tribunal referred to the failure of the Respondent to further details of her allegations when asked to do so by the Respondent in line with their established internal procedures and policies.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2012, outlawdiscriminationin work related areas such as pay, vocational training, access to employment, work experience and promotion. Cases involvingharassmentandvictimisationat work are also covered by the Acts.
Employees or Ex-Employees who feel they have been discriminated against may refer a complaint toThe Equality Tribunalthrough Workplace Relations Customer Services within 6 months of the occurrence of the act of discrimination. The Director of the Tribunal may extend this to a maximum of 12 months, if the complainant shows that there is reasonable cause to do so.
The nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Employment Equality Acts are as follows: Gender, Civil status, Family status, Sexual orientation, Religious belief, Age, Disability, Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, Membership of the Traveller community.
The Equality Tribunal published 7 decisions for June 2014.
Employment Equality Decisions Upheld or Part-Upheld:
DEC-E2014-041:Brian Buggle -v- City of Dublin VEC.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2011 – Sections 6, 8 – Age - Employment status – Access to employment – Prima facie case – Burden of proof – Objective justification – EU Directive 2000/78/EC.
Award:€8,000 for distress suffered as a result of discrimination.
DEC-E2014-045:John McAteer -v- South Tipperary County Council.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 – direct discrimination – Section 6(1), less favourable treatment, S. 6(2)(e) – the religion ground, indirect discrimination – Section 22 and 31, Section 8 – discriminatory dismissal, S. 85A – Burden of proof, Manifestation of religion – Council Directive 2000/78, Treaty of Lisbon, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Award: €70,000 in compensation for the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
Employment Equality Decisions Not Upheld:
DEC-E2014-042:Imgrat -v- Noonan Services Group Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998- 2011 – Sections 6, 8 and 79 – Discriminatory treatment – Race – non attendance at Hearing – Prima facie case.
DEC-E2014-043:Helen Malpas -v- Roscommon County Citizens Information Service Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Sections 6 and 8 – Age – Access to employment.
DEC-E2014-044:Teresa Bilas -v- Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Race – Conditions of Employment & Harassment.
DEC-E2014-046:Rimants Varnecks -v- DAR Golf Construction Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts, Discrimination – Race – Dismissal – Conditions of Employment – Non-attendance – No prima facie case
DEC-E2014-047:Mr Emmanuel Ibidokun -v- Veolia Environment Industries Services Branch (Ireland) Ltd.
Grounds/Issues:Race – Section 6(2)(h) – Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 – Dismissal.
Adare Human Resource Management Commentary
Case Law from the Equality Tribunal always provides a useful reminder to Employers of the appropriate procedures that they should have in place in order to defend themselves against claims of discriminatory treatment under the Employment Equality Acts.
In June, there were two successful claims leading to awards of €8,000 and €70,000 respectively. The remaining five claims were not upheld. The cases reported cover a number of complaints of discrimination under one or more of the nine ground and related aspects of employment including Access to Employment, Dismissal, Terms and Terms and Conditions of Employment. We have highlighted two specific decisions in June of the Equality Tribunal which are of value in reminding Employers of best practice and their obligations under the Employment Equality Acts.
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion
Employment Equality Decisions Upheld or Part-Upheld:
DEC-E2014-045:John McAteer -v- South Tipperary County Council.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 – direct discrimination – Section 6(1), less favourable treatment, S. 6(2)(e) – the religion ground, indirect discrimination – Section 22 and 31, Section 8 – discriminatory dismissal, S. 85A – Burden of proof, Manifestation of religion – Council Directive 2000/78, Treaty of Lisbon, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Award: €70,000 in compensation for the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
This dispute involved a claim by Mr. John McAteer (the “Complainant”) that he was discriminated against on the religion ground by South Tipperary County Council (the “Respondent”) in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal from the Council, contrary to Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2011.
The Complainant has been employed as civil engineer and was employed by the Respondent from December 2007 having previously worked with North Tipperary County Council for 10 years. He was primarily located in Clonmel Borough Council and he was dismissed on the 30th July 2010. The Complainant was an Evangelical Christian, commonly referred to as a Born Again Christian. In evidence, the Complainant submitted that the tenets of his religion required him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.
The Complainant started work in Clonmel Borough Council in December 2007 and on the 15th of April 2008 he was called to a meeting by the HR officer, Ms. X was told that there was a complaint about him sharing his faith in the office. The Complainant was asked to desist from doing so in the office, which he felt was unfair, particularly the request that that he desist from speaking about his faith during rest periods.
In response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not discriminated against in any respect in relation to his religious beliefs. However, the Respondent submitted that he was guilty of gross misconduct, resulting in his dismissal from employment, in refusing to obey a lawful instruction not to preach to either staff or member of the public during normal working hours i.e. 9am to 5pm and that because of his actions there was a potential that he would bring South Tipperary County Council into disrepute. As part of its submission, the Respondent further submitted that the Complainant had been made aware that if he continued to share his religious beliefs it would seriously undermine his role as Executive Engineer and could result in reluctance on the part of members of the public from interacting with him solely on a professional basis. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant, despite receiving a final written warning, was in breach of his employment contract by not obeying an instruction not to preach his personal religious beliefs. It was submitted that there was a lack of trust that the Complainant would conduct himself in a professional manner when he carried out his duties on behalf of the Council.
Following a further number of alleged incidents outside of lunch hours in which the Complainant was alleged to have been engaging with others regarding his religious beliefs, the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct
In determination of its conclusions, the Tribunal found that no evidence was presented that the Complainant did not carry out his duties on behalf of the Council in an appropriate manner nor did he receive warnings about the quality of his work. The Tribunal further noted that the Respondent did not receive any complaints from members of the public regarding the Complainant and discussions or conversations concerning his faith.
Determination
In determination of its decision, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the Complainant was treated less favourably on the grounds of religion and that a person of a different relation or a person of no religion would not have been treated in similar circumstances as other staff has not had their conversations with members of the public investigated and reported to management. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that “the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.
In the calculation of re-dress, the Equality Officer found in favour of the Complainant, that the Respondent did discriminate against the Complainant on the religion grounds. The effects of the dismissal on the Complainant were very serious and he has only succeeded in getting part-time work since then.
This case provides an important warning to all Employers that the area of Equality is an area of significance to Employers, and one which can present adverse publicity and the risk of claims by both current and former Employees as well as applicants for employment. It also serves as a useful reminder to Employers to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities in relation to equality in the workplace. Aside from the significant compensation which can be awarded, as illustrated in this case, the negative press that can be generated by an equality claim can be extremely harmful to an Employer’s standing.
Any dismissal of an Employee arising wholly or partly from any ground in the Employment Equality Acts, e.g. on the basis of religion, may be viewed as unfair dismissal. In making its determination in this case, the Tribunal found that the Respondent’s decision to restrict the Complainant’s right to manifest his religious beliefs and ultimately dismiss him from employment was not an appropriate or proportionate decision and that the Complainant failed to objectively justification their decisions.
Best Practice Promotion of Non-Discriminatory Practices and Management of Harassment Claims
Employment Equality Decisions Not Upheld:
DEC-E2014-044:Teresa Bilas -v- Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland.
Grounds/Issues:Employment Equality Acts – Race – Conditions of Employment & Harassment.
This dispute concerned claims by Ms Teresa Bilas (the “Complainant”) that she was discriminated against by Campbell Catering Limited t/a ARAMARK Ireland (the “Respondent) on the grounds of race and that she was harassed contrary to the Employment Equality Acts.
The Complainant started working for the Respondent in April 2005 as a Catering Assistant in Newbridge and resigned voluntarily from her role in April 2012. The Complainant contended that she was subjected to ongoing harassment from a manager who she identified at the hearing as Ms A. The Complainant also related a number of instances where she alleged Ms A treated her in a manner that amounted to harassment and that she treated Irish workers differently.
At the hearing, Ms A denied all the allegations and gave evidence that she would have had little direct contact with the Complainant. In evidence, the Complainant referred to the ‘final incident’ in which she was asked to work for the Respondent at another location. The Complainant stated that she was upset when she was unable to locate the correct canteen. In this regard, the Tribunal in its determination found no evidence that the Complainant was treated any differently than any other member of staff of any nationality.
The Complainant contended that she made a number of complaints about the harassment but was unable to present any evidence to demonstrate that she made these complaints whilst she was at work. In evidence however it was submitted that the Complainant made a number of allegations during a period of s sick leave before subsequently resigning the Respondent, in evidence submitted that the Complainant was provided with an opportunity to address her concerns but that she chose not to give the Respondent specific details of her allegations.
The Respondent denied that the Complainant suffered any treatment in relation to her race or harassment and submitted that the Employee was aware of the appropriate steps to follow having confirmed receipt of the Organisation’s Dignity at Work policy and separate Grievance as part of her induction programme.
In conclusion, the Equality Officer found that the Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to her conditions of employment on the race ground, and that the Complainant had also failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment on the race ground.
Despite taking steps to eliminate harassment or claims of discrimination within the workplace, from time to time such complaints may arise. Where a complaint does arise, the Employer must be seen to act fairly in dealing with the issue. Following the correct procedure is fundamental in reducing exposure to future legal claims for compensation in relation to harassment or a claim under one or more of the nine grounds in which it is illegal for an Employer to discriminate. Organisations are advised to always take appropriate steps where a complaint is received.
Organisations are encouraged to have an Equal Opportunities policy in place which seeks to promote equality of opportunity and fair treatment of all Employees. Equally, the Code of Practice related to harassment and sexual harassment outline that every Employer should have in place informal and formal procedures for an Employee to follow in the event of a complaint. The Code also recommends that should a Manager be approached for advice or support in relation to harassment, he/she should be equipped to explain the policy and complaints procedure clearly to the person seeking advice.
In finding in favour of the Respondent in this case, the Tribunal referred to the failure of the Respondent to further details of her allegations when asked to do so by the Respondent in line with their established internal procedures and policies.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2012, outlawdiscriminationin work related areas such as pay, vocational training, access to employment, work experience and promotion. Cases involvingharassmentandvictimisationat work are also covered by the Acts.
Employees or Ex-Employees who feel they have been discriminated against may refer a complaint toThe Equality Tribunalthrough Workplace Relations Customer Services within 6 months of the occurrence of the act of discrimination. The Director of the Tribunal may extend this to a maximum of 12 months, if the complainant shows that there is reasonable cause to do so.
The nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Employment Equality Acts are as follows: Gender, Civil status, Family status, Sexual orientation, Religious belief, Age, Disability, Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, Membership of the Traveller community.
