Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED891 Case Number: EEO901 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: NORTH WEST PARENTS AND FRIENDS - and - A WORKER;THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim alleging discrimination in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, on the grounds of marital status.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the written submissions and the
lengthy arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the
view that the case rests initially on whether or not the Secretary
made the statement as alleged by the claimant "the job was
unsuitable for a young married couple". The Secretary denied
making such a statement and in the course of re-buttal submitted
the grounds for the claimant's dismissal during her probationary
period.
(a) At the original interview in September, 1988 the
Secretary was made aware of the applicants intention to
get married in August 1989. The Court was asked to
accept that this fact together with the ratio of
married individuals and couples to total staff clearly
demonstrated that there was no bias against married
employees.
(b) Despite the Secretary's advice the claimant and her
colleague House Parent opted for a 7 day on/off roster
of attendance. This arrangement later led to
dissatisfaction on the part of the claimant and to
disagreement on a revision of rosters which was still
unresolved up to the termination of her employment.
(c) Both House Parents were fully aware of the importance
attaching to the rules governing unauthorised visits to
the Hostel, yet, despite representations and warnings
between December and June including a verbal warning of
dismissal on 1st June, 1989 breaches of the rule,
particularly by the claimant, did not cease.
(d) A further dispute arose concerning the claimants
holiday Pay in July and on the 26th July a heated
argument took place at the Hostel concerning both the
unresolved rosters and Holiday arrangements. The
Secretary states that the insubordination of the
claimant on the 28th July was "the final straw" and he
decided to terminate her employment as she was still on
probation.
(e) At the time of dismissal the Secretary indicated to Ms
Burke that he would consider offering her employment at
another location, working Monday to Friday under
supervision. Ms Burke declined this offer.
In its examination of the evidence the Court found no
corroboration or inference to support the claimant's allegation.
While there was no direct corroboration of the Secretary's denial
of having made the statement alleged, the facts established above
support his claim that the dismissal was not based on
discriminatory grounds. The Court therefore finds that the
claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of marital
status.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED891 EEO190
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27
PARTIES: NORTH WEST PARENTS AND FRIENDS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
A WORKER
(Represented by the Local Government and Public Services Union)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim alleging discrimination in contravention of Section 3(4)
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, on the grounds of marital
status.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Northwest Parents and Friends Association was founded in
1963 to provide care of the mentally handicapped. The Association
has hostels, schools, workshops and day centres at seven locations
throughout the counties of Sligo and Leitrim. It employees in
excess of 40 people. It operates as a voluntary organisation with
local support.
In 1988 Rathedmond Hostel was designated a seven day residence for
mentally handicapped adults. In September, 1988 interviews for
the positions of House Parent were held. Following
re-organisation two Hostel House Parents were appointed. The
claimant a qualified childcare worker with a National Diploma in
Childcare was one of the applicants, interviewed by the Secretary
of the Association. The interview covered a wide range of issues
including terms and conditions of employment, rostering
arrangements etc. During the interview the worker informed the
Secretary that she was getting married in August, 1989. There was
no objection to the worker's pending marriage arrangements. The
worker was appointed house-parent at Rathedmond Hostel on the 9th
October, 1988. The appointment was subject to she satisfactorily
completing 12 month probation. A job description was drafted for
the worker highlighting the nature of her duties. It was also
stressed that in no circumstances would the Association allow the
worker vistors while she was on duty at the Hostel.
Between October, 1988 to March 1989. the Secretary, on his
visitation to the Hostel, discovered that the worker had visitors
on numerous occasions. On a number of these occasions it was
noted by the Secretary that it was the worker's fiancee who was
present.
On 23rd January, 1989 the worker informed the Secretary that her
marriage plans had been changed to April, 1989 rather than August,
1989. (She also attended Marriage guidance courses but had
agreement with the other houseparent to cover during her absence.)
In the months that followed it was noted by the Secretary that the
worker's husband was a frequent visitor to the Hostel. He phoned
the Secretary on 12th June, 1989 and requested that the rule
regarding visitors be waived in his wife case as he would like to
visit her at the Hostel regularly. The Secretary raised the
matter with his superiors, permission was not granted and no
change to the contract in employment was envisaged.
On 27th July, 1989, the worker informed the Secretary, that she
was going on three weeks annual leave and that her total absence
from the Hostel would be four weeks due to the rostered duty of
seven days on and seven days off. The worker offered to work the
fourth week instead of taking the leave in total. The Secretary
disagreed with the long term leave proposed.
The Secretary came to the Hostel on the 28th July. He had
previously arranged that there would be no residents staying in
the Hostel over that weekend and the residents agreed to call to
collect their luggage. After organising the baggage, he then
approached the worker and confirmed to her, that she was correct
with regard to the wages issue raised the night before. The
worker referred to the date she started in the Hostel and the
worker alleges that the Secretary said that he didn't think the
job as a Houseparent was a suitable one for a young married couple
and that he would pay the week owned to her plus one month's
notice. The Secretary said that instead of her having to come
back after her holidays, to work the last week of her notice.
On the 18th August, 1989, the worker referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act,
1977. A Court hearing was held in Sligo on the 5th December,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Contract of Employment that was signed on 22nd
October, 1988 did not specify or include a clause, that a
Houseparent appointed had to be single, neither was there any
indication that this was desired by the Association at the
interview.
2. The Grade of Houseparent is a recognised national grade.
Voluntary organisations as well as Health Boards, employ
people without applying a bar to married women working in a
seven day residential hostel.
3. 3. There is no evidence that the worker's work performance,
attendance, or time-keeping had caused any concern to the
Association prior to and following her marriage. Marriage,
therefore, did not materially affect her employment
relationship with her employer or the service provided to the
residents.
4. During her nine months working period with the Hostel,
she was not subjected to verbal or written warnings as is
provided for in the disciplinary procedures that was attached
to her Contract of Employment. (Copy supplied to the Court).
ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Secretary explained to the worker the nature of the
duties and stressed that no visitors were allowed in the
Hostel without his written permission. The job description
disciplinary procedures given to the worker on her appointment
was to ensure fair treatment for employees.
2. On the 1st June, 1989, the Secretary met both employees
in the Hostel and advised the worker that the rule regarding
visitors was being breached and if not rectified would result
in her dismissal.
3. The worker forwarded a revised roster to the Secretary
on 10th July, 1989. The Secretary having considered this
proposed proposal thought this roster to be impractical and of
no benefit, and he proposed a roster that had worked well in
other hostels.
4. The current staffing of the Association includes 22
married individuals, including 2 married couples. This shows
the Association is bearing no bias with regard to marital
status of individuals.
DETERMINATION:
5. Having carefully considered the written submissions and the
lengthy arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the
view that the case rests initially on whether or not the Secretary
made the statement as alleged by the claimant "the job was
unsuitable for a young married couple". The Secretary denied
making such a statement and in the course of re-buttal submitted
the grounds for the claimant's dismissal during her probationary
period.
(a) At the original interview in September, 1988 the
Secretary was made aware of the applicants intention to
get married in August 1989. The Court was asked to
accept that this fact together with the ratio of
married individuals and couples to total staff clearly
demonstrated that there was no bias against married
employees.
(b) Despite the Secretary's advice the claimant and her
colleague House Parent opted for a 7 day on/off roster
of attendance. This arrangement later led to
dissatisfaction on the part of the claimant and to
disagreement on a revision of rosters which was still
unresolved up to the termination of her employment.
(c) Both House Parents were fully aware of the importance
attaching to the rules governing unauthorised visits to
the Hostel, yet, despite representations and warnings
between December and June including a verbal warning of
dismissal on 1st June, 1989 breaches of the rule,
particularly by the claimant, did not cease.
(d) A further dispute arose concerning the claimants
holiday Pay in July and on the 26th July a heated
argument took place at the Hostel concerning both the
unresolved rosters and Holiday arrangements. The
Secretary states that the insubordination of the
claimant on the 28th July was "the final straw" and he
decided to terminate her employment as she was still on
probation.
(e) At the time of dismissal the Secretary indicated to Ms
Burke that he would consider offering her employment at
another location, working Monday to Friday under
supervision. Ms Burke declined this offer.
In its examination of the evidence the Court found no
corroboration or inference to support the claimant's allegation.
While there was no direct corroboration of the Secretary's denial
of having made the statement alleged, the facts established above
support his claim that the dismissal was not based on
discriminatory grounds. The Court therefore finds that the
claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of marital
status.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th January, 1990 ----------------
M.N./U.S. Chairman