Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED887 Case Number: EEO887 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: BEALE SHEFFIELD AND COMPANY - and - A WORKER;FITZGERALD & O'LEARY, SOLICITORS |
Claim alleging discrimination in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, on the grounds of marital status in relation to selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
ORDER:
5. The Court, on the basis of the evidence presented, is not
satisfied that the claim that the appellant had been discriminated
against within the terms of Section 3(4) of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977, is sustained.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal of unfair dismissal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED887 EEO788
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27
PARTIES: BEALE SHEFFIELD AND COMPANY
(Represented by Guest, Lane, Williams & Company)
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Fitzgerald & O'Leary, Solicitors)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim alleging discrimination in contravention of Section 3(4)
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, on the grounds of marital
status in relation to selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in the Company's accounts
department in the 1970s. She married in 1978 and resigned from
the Company in 1979. She returned to work on a number of
subsequent occasions when the volume of the Company's business
necessitated extra staff (details supplied to the Court). In
early 1987 she was engaged full time on a temporary basis to cover
for the maternity leave of another employee (JO'N). On the return
of JO'N from maternity leave on the 6th July, 1987, the claimant
was let go and was given two weeks' holiday pay and her P45. She
was re-engaged on the 27th July because the Company experienced a
sudden upsurge in its level of business. In March, 1988, she was
again let go. The Company claim that this was due to its very low
level of trading and that the two workers remaining in the
accounts section, JO'N and VM were put on half-time. The claimant
however, alleges that she had longer service and more experience
than VM and that she was selected for redundancy on the basis of
her marital status (VM is single). On the 20th September, 1988,
she referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 27 of
the Employment Equality Act, 1977. A Court hearing was held in
Cork on the 6th December, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 From January, 1988, to March, 1988, the claimant worked a two
to three day week (averaging 16 to 20 hours per week), paid
an A1 stamp and signed on at the employment exchange on the
other days. As a result of being let go in March, 1988, she
is suffering a weekly net loss of #30.
3.2 The claimant had been let go in July, 1987, but was re-called
the same month on a part-time basis. She was working with
JO'N and a new girl, VM, who had also joined the Company that
month. In November, 1987, she indicated that she was
available and anxious for full-time work. She spoke to one
of the partners and he informed her that VM was the third
person, that she was temporary and that her position would be
reviewed that Christmas. The claimant was also informed that
she would not be let go prior to VM.
3.3 Shortly before Easter, 1988, the claimant learned that the
partners had approached JO'N and VM with a view to them going
on half-time (job sharing). Both agreed to this. The
claimant was subsequently given her notice. She had
discussions with the partners who, though sympathetic, told
her that it was not possible to reverse the decision. She
alleges that she was also told by one of the partners that
"your husband can support you at home". Furthermore, one of
the partners agreed that the meeting he had with the claimant
in November, 1987, was on the basis that VM would be the
first out as she was last in.
3.4 The claimant alleges that she was discriminated against in
selection for redundancy on the basis of her marital status
and refers to the statement made regarding her having a
husband who could support her as proof of this. This claim
is further reinforced by the acknowledgement of one of the
partners that she would be considered for full-time
employment ahead of VM. She had seniority over VM and would
have been in a position to accept time-sharing with JO'N had
it been offered to her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company is an unlimited liability company carrying on the
business of stockbrokers. After the stockmarket crash of
October, 1987, the volume of trading was reduced to a very
low level and when it became apparent in March, 1988, that
there was no likelihood of an early return in trading volume,
it became necessary to reduce staff numbers. It was decided
that the most equitable and economic way to reduce staff
numbers and overheads was to put both JO'N and VM on
half-time and let the claimant go, as she was the last person
to be employed and was engaged on a part-time temporary
basis.
4.2 It was with regret that these decisions were made and it was
only because of its concern for its employees that they were
kept working on the same basis as prior to the October 1987
crash for such a long time after it, as many other workers in
comparable employments had been let go at a much earlier
date.
4.3 During the last few months of her employment there was
insufficient work in the accounts department to keep the
claimant occupied and she was doing minor jobs that were not
in keeping with her employment as a book-keeper and the
salary she was being paid.
4.4 During all the claimant's periods of employment, the Company
found her to be an excellent employee. It was because of its
high regard for her that they engaged her services during the
periods where extra assistance was required. The fact that
she was a married woman was not a consideration either in
employing her or dispensing with her services.
RECOMMENDATION:
ORDER:
5. The Court, on the basis of the evidence presented, is not
satisfied that the claim that the appellant had been discriminated
against within the terms of Section 3(4) of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977, is sustained.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal of unfair dismissal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman