EEO904

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED907 Case Number: EEO904 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: GALWAY FABRICS AND FASHIONS LIMITED - and - MS. EVE CULLEN;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY

Subject:
Dispute concerning alleged discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to Ms. Cullen's dismissal from her employment.

Recommendation:
8. The Court, having investigated the dispute, and having
considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties, is
satisfied that the complaint that Ms. Cullen was dismissed for
reasons which contravened Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality
Act, 1977 is well founded.

The Court therefore, pursuant to its powers under Section 21(1)(d)
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 orders Galway Fabrics and
Fashions Limited, trading as Sadia Fashions of 17 Aungier Street,
Dublin 2, to pay to Ms. Eve Cullen of 12 Hillview Estate,
Ballinteer, Dublin 16, the sum of #500 compensation which the
Court considers reasonable in the circumstances.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

EED907 ORDER NO. EEO490

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27


PARTIES: GALWAY FABRICS AND FASHIONS LIMITED
T/A SADIA FASHIONS

and

MS. EVE CULLEN
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)

SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged discrimination on grounds of sex in
relation to Ms. Cullen's dismissal from her employment.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company carries on the business of importing ladies, gents
and children clothing and selling them to retail outlets. The
business is operated from a four storey warehouse. The Company's
own van brings in the goods from Britain once a week, twice weekly
during busy periods.

3. Ms. Cullen was employed as a warehouse assistant from 2nd
October, 1989 until the 11th November, 1989. Her duties consisted
of sorting and arranging garments for display, assisting customers
with orders, invoicing, helping with deliveries and cleaning up.
Ms. Cullen also checked incoming stock and assisted with unloading
stock from the delivery van.

4. On the 6 November, 1989 Ms. Cullen was summoned to the office
where she was informed that her employment was being terminated as
the Company considered that she was not able for the work. Ms.
Cullen worked her notice and ceased employment on the 11th
November, 1989.

5. The Employment Equality Agency referred a complaint on behalf
of Ms. Cullen to the Labour Court under Section 27 of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 alleging that she was dismissed on
grounds of sex from her employment contrary to Section 3 of
Employment Equality Act, 1977 in terms of Section 2(a) of that
Act. The Court investigated the complaint on 19th July, 1990.



AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Ms. Cullen was capable of performing her duties; indeed
she never complained about her duties and she had never
received any complaint from her employer about the performance
of her duties.


2. Ms. Cullen was shocked when she was informed that she was
being let go because the work was too hard for her and the
Company wished to recruit a young man (which it did prior to
her leaving). Ms. Cullen's reference from the Company states
inter alia that



"As we get most of our goods into the warehouse in
cartons, most of which have to be brought up three
flights of stairs, we find that this work is too heavy
for her and we have to replace her by a youth who would
be able to handle this work as well as the other duties."


The foregoing clearly indicates that Ms. Cullen was dismissed
from employment on grounds of her sex.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. At the time Ms. Cullen was recruited the nature of the
work was explained to her, and she said she thought she would
be able for it and would give it a try. The Company
discovered after a few weeks she was not able for the work.
On a few occasions she was found sitting on the stairs while
others were unloading. On one such occasion she said she
could not carry the heavy jeans.


2. The Company discussed the situation with her on the 6th
November, 1989 and told her that as she was not able for the
heavy work it would have to let her go and employ somebody who
was fit for the heavy work involved (some of the items of
clothing i.e. jeans are in bundles of 10). At no point was
she told that she was being dismissed because she was female.
Anybody in her position who was not able for the work would
have to be replaced.


ORDER:
8. The Court, having investigated the dispute, and having
considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties, is
satisfied that the complaint that Ms. Cullen was dismissed for
reasons which contravened Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality
Act, 1977 is well founded.

The Court therefore, pursuant to its powers under Section 21(1)(d)
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 orders Galway Fabrics and
Fashions Limited, trading as Sadia Fashions of 17 Aungier Street,
Dublin 2, to pay to Ms. Eve Cullen of 12 Hillview Estate,
Ballinteer, Dublin 16, the sum of #500 compensation which the
Court considers reasonable in the circumstances.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


John O'Connell
________________________
7th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.