Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED903 Case Number: EEO903 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: JOE JENNINGS DUBLIN LIMITED - and - MRS. MARIE BOLAND;THE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL;PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged discriminatory dismissal of Ms. Marie Boland contrary to the terms of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
Recommendation:
6. The Court notes that the employer stated in writing on at
least two occasions that the claimant was being dismissed simply
by reason of her sex and furthermore acted in accordance with that
reason by replacing the worker with a man. The Court does not
accept as credible the explanation offered by the employer's
representatives that the reason given was simply to spare the
claimant's feelings.
The Court is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded and that
the claimant's dismissal was discrimination contrary to Section
3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The Court further finds that the mitigating effects of the offer
of alternative employment to have been diminished by reason of the
delay of six months before the offer was made. It also finds that
the method of termination of the employment was, in the
circumstances, unreasonable in that it was open to potentially
serious implications which could have damaged the good reputation
of the worker within the industry.
Taking the above factors into account the Court hereby directs Joe
Jennings Licenced Bookmakers to pay to Mrs. Marie Boland
compensation of 78 weeks' salary (at the rate of #180 per week)
less the sum of #500 already paid to the said worker at the
termination of her employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED903 EEO390
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27
PARTIES: JOE JENNINGS DUBLIN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MOHAN McCLAFFERTY, SOLICITORS)
and
MRS. MARIE BOLAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL
PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged discriminatory dismissal of Ms. Marie Boland contrary
to the terms of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as manageress of the
Company's Moore Street branch from the 12th June, 1989 until the
21st September, 1989. She was paid #180 per week and was on a
three month probationary period. On the morning of the 21st
September she was summarily dismissed by her employer, Joe
Jennings Dublin Limited. She subsequently received a cheque for
#500, comprising a week's pay in lieu of notice and an ex-gratia
payment. The cheque was post-dated. She also received a
reference from her former employer, dated the 23rd September,
1989, which stated:
"Mrs. Marie Boland was employed by this Company from June 12th
- September 21st 1989, in the capacity of Manageress of our
Betting Office at 3, Moore Street, Dublin and we have no
hesitation in recommending her for a similar position.
At all times Mrs. Boland was most reliable, conscientious and
hard working.
At the end of a three month period, I decided that this
particular branch, in a busy market situation, should be
managed by a male personality as I considered this
necessary."
A male worker from another branch of the Company filled her post
on the morning of her dismissal. The Union wrote to the Company
at its head office in Essex in England on the 4th October seeking
a meeting to discuss the dismissal which it claimed was both
unfair and illegal. On the 24th October the Company wrote to the
Union arguing that it had fully met its obligations to the worker.
In its response, it stated inter alia that, "as far as the
reference was concerned there was nothing derogatory about this
and there are certain shops that, in my respectful opinion, could
work better with female management and, likewise, others work
better with male management."
3. The Union alleges that her dismissal was solely on the grounds
of sex and was therefore contrary to Section 3(4) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977. This is denied by the Company
which claims she was dismissed on the grounds of incompetence.
The Union subsequently referred the case to the Labour Court under
Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. A Court hearing
was held on the 29th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As manageress of the branch, the claimants' position was
one of responsibility and trust and she was authorised to
withdraw money from the Company's bank account on her own
initiative.
2. Earlier in the week of her dismissal the claimant had
spoken by phone to Mr. Joe Jennings (who is based in England)
and had raised the question of her future with the Company
given that her probationary period had expired. It was
mutually agreed that she would continue working for the
Company (details supplied to the Court).
3. On the following Thursday morning Mr. Joe Jennings arrived
in Dublin from England and ordered the claimant to hand over
the keys of the office to his son and to collect her
belongings as she was not coming back. She was shocked both
by the suddenness of the decision and by the implication of
his orders. In the small world of the Dublin bookmaking
business, where people know others who work in different
companies, to be dismissed is bad enough but to be summarily
dismissed is even worse as it has the connotation of
dishonesty attached to it. As such, it would be the end of
her 25 years in the business - hence her desire to be
vindicated as soon as possible.
4. Subsequent to her dismissal a male worker was moved into
the Moore Street office from the Dorset Street one and a
female worker was taken into the Dorset Street office on a
part-time basis. This all happened on the morning of the
dismissal and it is clear that it was pre-arranged.
5. The claim by the Company that she was dismissed for
reasons of incompetency is totally refuted. The claimant has
approximately 25' years experience in the business, including
ten years running her own shop (details supplied to the
Court).
6. The offer of alternative employment made six months after
her dismissal was not acceptable to the claimant and would
still not be acceptable if still open to her.
7. The Court is requested to find that her dismissal was
based solely on her sex and was therefore contrary to the
terms of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977,
and that she be adequately compensated for her loss of
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The employer is not guilty of sex discrimination. The
claimant was removed from her post for reason of incompetency
and not on the grounds alleged. The claimant was informed
that a man would do the job better but was told same so as not
to hurt her feelings by accusing her of being incompetent.
2. The claimant had settled bets inaccurately (Mr. Jennings
had personally witnessed this at least six times) and there
were also inaccuracies in adding up (details supplied to the
Court).
3. Management never alleged any dishonesty on her part. He
dismissal was solely based on incompetency.
4. The fact that she was replaced by a male worker is purely
coincidental. She could just as easily have been replaced by
a woman.
5. Mr. Jennings refutes the claim that the alleged telephone
conversation earlier in the week of her dismissal ever took
place.
6. In March, 1990, the claimant was offered alternative
employment in Mountown, Dun Laoghaire, on exactly the same
wages with first option to move closer to home. The Company
had no objection to employing her as long as it is not in a
management position.
7. The Court is requested to find that the worker was
dismissed on the grounds of incompetency and not on those
alleged and that the employer is therefore not guilty of sex
discrimination contrary to the terms of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977.
ORDER:
6. The Court notes that the employer stated in writing on at
least two occasions that the claimant was being dismissed simply
by reason of her sex and furthermore acted in accordance with that
reason by replacing the worker with a man. The Court does not
accept as credible the explanation offered by the employer's
representatives that the reason given was simply to spare the
claimant's feelings.
The Court is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded and that
the claimant's dismissal was discrimination contrary to Section
3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The Court further finds that the mitigating effects of the offer
of alternative employment to have been diminished by reason of the
delay of six months before the offer was made. It also finds that
the method of termination of the employment was, in the
circumstances, unreasonable in that it was open to potentially
serious implications which could have damaged the good reputation
of the worker within the industry.
Taking the above factors into account the Court hereby directs Joe
Jennings Licenced Bookmakers to pay to Mrs. Marie Boland
compensation of 78 weeks' salary (at the rate of #180 per week)
less the sum of #500 already paid to the said worker at the
termination of her employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
19th July, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.