Employment - O'Hanlon & O'Dowd Solicitors

Employment

Teacher awarded €12,000 for religious discrimination

Written by Rita Gillen

Thursday, 25 November 2010 09:42

A teacher whose offer of a permanent position was withdrawn was recently awarded €12,000 by the Equality Tribunal for discrimination based on her religion.

Ms. McKeever, who is a member of the Church of Ireland, was interviewed for a position in the Autism Unit of a national school in May 2007 but was unsuccessful. A month later, she was contacted by the principal who offered her a permanent teaching post, based on her previous interview. Ms. McKeever verbally accepted the post and subsequently received a letter form the Chair of the Board confirming the offer. In July 2007, the Chair of the Board of Management contacted her again, enquiring whether Ms. McKeever had a Catholic religious certificate. Ms. McKeever confirmed that she did not and that she was a member of the Church of Ireland. However, she stated that she was willing to teach the religious course. The Chair of the Board said that her religion was not an issue as she would be teaching 4th class, which is not involved in the Communion or Confirmation.

However, Ms. McKeever subsequently received a letter from the Board of Management withdrawing their offer of a permanent post, explaining that there had been procedural difficulties. They stated that only temporary or part-time teaching posts could be appointed from previous interviews, and that the permanent teaching post should have been advertised. Ms. McKeever submitted to the tribunal that she believed that it was because of her religion that she was refused the post. Ms. McKeever re-applied for the post but never attended the interview when called.

The Equality Tribunal held that the complainant had been discriminated against based on her religion after examining the minutes of the Board of Management's meeting. The Tribunal found that the candidate's religion had been discussed before the procedural issues were discussed by the Board. Thus, The Tribunal held that Ms. McKeever's religion influenced the Board's decision to withdraw the offer, as they rationalised that the Board could easily have ratified her teaching post offer retrospectively. Ms. McKeever was awarded €12,697 in compensation for the discriminatory treatment.

Employee awarded €7,500 for being unfairly selected for redundancy

Written by Rita Gillen

Monday, 15 November 2010 13:03

A former employee who was made redundant was awarded €7,500 in compensation by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (E.A.T.) due to being unfairly selected for redundancy.

The employee commenced employment as bookkeeper in the respondent's company in January 2008. A year later, the company went into financial difficulty and the financial advisor of the company advised staff that short-term and a 12.5% pay cut were being considered. However, the company decided to implement redundancies instead, fearing that short-term would aversely affect customer service. The financial advisor submitted to the tribunal that at a staff meeting, the complainant had volunteered herself for redundancy, claiming that she had hairdressing skills and that she was concerned for a colleague with a young family. The former employee denied expressing this request at the staff meeting.

The company, when they were determining who would be selected for redundancy, examined the employees' attendance and disciplinary records, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. In a meeting with the company directors on January 30th 2009, the complainant was informed that she had been selected redundancy. However, she was never informed of the selection criteria, nor did the directors enquire as to her ability to perform other tasks.

While the E.A.T. did acknowledge that a genuine redundancy situation existed, they held that the complainant had been unfairly selected for redundancy. Their decision was based on the fact that the complainant was never afforded the opportunity to make her own submissions on the matter, and that she was never shown the strengths and weaknesses criteria. Since the former employee was selected due to her attendance and disciplinary record, the E.A.T. held that this was in fact a disciplinary matter. They held that the company were in effect disciplining the complainant, and that these factors should not have formed part of their decision making. Thus, the E.A.T. awarded the former employee €7,500 in compensation for unfair redundancy.

Former Lecturer awarded €45,000 for Unfair Dismissal

Written by Rita Gillen
Tuesday, 09 November 2010 15:17
A former lecturer of a computing school was recently awarded €45,000 for unfair dismissal by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (E.A.T.). The lecturer had been employed in the computing school since 1987 and was promoted to the position of lecturer in 1991. However after a period of suspension, following an altercation with a colleague, relations between the lecturer and employer rapidly deteriorated. The lecturer failed to attend several meetings, including discussions on student placement after the “dot.com crash”. The only meeting which the lecturer attended was in relation to a grievance which he had lodged. At the meeting, he refused to answer questions and abruptly left, stating that a trade union representative should have been present. The lecturer then informed his employer of his decision to take leave, without citing the reasons for doing so. Numerous attempts were made to contact the lecturer. Eventually the head of the computing school contacted the college president who was informed of the difficulties. The president then sent several letters to the lecturer instructing him to meet with the head of school, which the lecturer never complied with. The president eventually dismissed the employee. At a previous Rights Commissioner hearing on the case, it was recommended that the lecturer be reinstated due to the employer's failure to comply with fair procedures. However, the E.A.T. refused to affirm this recommendation due to the employee's behaviour and failure to mitigate his loss of earnings by seeking another lecturing position. Instead, they awarded the former lecturer €45,000 for unfair dismissal.

Equality Tribunal awards Polish employees €22,500 for racial harassment

Written by Rita Gillen

Thursday, 21 October 2010 13:01

Several polish employees were successful in their recent Equality Tribunal case against their former employers. The workers claimed that they had been racially harassed by their former employers. The employer had sent several Polish employees to work for a third party company. While the employees were working for this particular company, they were subjected to verbal abuse by their supervisors.

One of the supervisors, a Ms. A, consistently spoke to her Polish colleagues using derogatory language, referring to them as “animals” and that they were lazy. One of the Polish claimants admitted to the Tribunal that he was afraid to go into work because of Ms. A's behaviour. The former employees submitted that they had informed on numerous occasions a Polish-speaking work colleague, Ms. C, of their grievances. However, the respondent company never investigated these complaints.

The Equality Officer, Gary O'Doherty, acknowledged that while respondents could not intervene in the third party company, they were aware of the harassment occurring. Mr. O'Doherty further stated that they sent in a further 3 Polish employees into that workplace, despite knowing of the harassment that was occurring. The Equality Officer said it was “unacceptable” that one of the Polish claimants, Mr. Kowalski, had been subjected to over 4 months of racial harassment and that the respondents were fully aware of this. Most of the Polish claimants were awarded approx €4,000 in compensation. However, Mr. Kowalski, because of the length of time which he suffered racial harassment, was awarded €10,000 in compensation.

What is harassment?

Harassment has been given a broad definition under section 14 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2004. Harassment is defined as where there is any form of unwanted conduct, or verbal or physical contact. If a person is humiliated or degraded on any of the 9 discriminatory grounds under the Acts (e.g. race), this will also be considered to be harassment.

Employer's Liability

Under section 14 of the Acts, unless the employer has acted to prevent harassment as reasonably practicable, then they may be liable for co-workers and even client's actions. In order to prevent this occurring, an employer should include a bullying and harassment code of practice within their employee's contracts. The employer must also ensure that there is a proper grievance procedure provided for in the employees' contracts or in an employee handbook.

Employment Appeals Tribunal awards €7000 for Constructive Dismissal

Written by Rita Gillen

Monday, 18 October 2010 08:35

Ms. McCann, a former employee of a DIY Company, was recently awarded €7,000 in compensation by the Employment Appeals Tribunal after successfully proving she left on constructive dismissal. Ms. McCann submitted to the Tribunal that she had been forced to leave her job after she was subjected to inappropriate remarks from a male supervisor.

Since June 2007, she was employed as showroom manager in the Company and reported to a male store manager. Over the course of her employment, Ms. McCann was subjected to inappropriate sexual remarks from the male manager who actively encouraged her to “wear skirts with heels” and to use her body to advance her career. Their working relationship rapidly deteriorated and in November 2007, when she informed the manger of her pregnancy, he enquired as to “what she intended to do.” Ms. McCann understood him to mean was she planning to get an abortion.

After this incident, HR were contacted and a HR representative visited the workplace. The HR representative was shocked to hear about these remarks and informed the manager that it was dangerous to speak to a female colleague in such a manner. Nonetheless, the HR representative informed the claimant that the manager's comments were “honest”. Ms. McCann was never offered by HR the option of proceeding with a grievance procedure. Ms. McCann stated that she was constantly undermined by the manager as he would have the other managers evaluate her work. Eventually after a period of sick leave, she handed in her resignation in October 2008.

The EAT held that the employee had been constructively dismissed stating that the comments made by the manager were “entirely inappropriate”. However their decision was more influenced by the behaviour of HR, who never informed Ms. McCann of the grievance procedure available and never monitored the situation and effectively left Ms. McCann with no support. Ms. McCann was awarded €7,000 in compensation for the distress caused.

(021) 4824426