Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE921 Case Number: DEE937 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: AVIS RENT-A-CAR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MS. E. O'SULLIVAN;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Appeal, by the Agency, against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE23/1991 concerning an allegation that Ms. O'Sullivan was discriminated against contrary to Section 2 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 in breach of Section 3 of that Act by denying her access to a promotional opportunity, and, by denying her the promotion itself.
Recommendation:
5. This is an appeal by the worker against the findings of an
Equality Officer (EE23/1991) that she was not discriminated
against in terms of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 ('the Act').
The worker had complained that she was denied access to a
promotional opportunity and denied the promotion itself and that
these denials constituted discrimination within the meaning of the
Act.
The worker claimed that as she had been carrying out the duties of
the position, and had had to train in the new appointee, she
should have been offered the chance to compete for appointment,
and should have been appointed.
The company made the case that its priority was to appoint a
person with computer skills in order to implement an instruction
from its European headquarters with regard to computerisation. It
had headhunted three individuals in the industry without success,
and as an alternative then looked at the option of restructuring
the section in question. The company decided to create a new
post, and appointed a male member of its existing staff to the
post.
The company claimed that the appointee was the most suitable
person for the post in that he had relevant computer experience,
he had more service with the company, and his service was more
relevant to the new needs of the company. The company further
claimed that the worker was less reliable than the appointee, with
a history of casual sick leave.
The Court heard the appeal on the 29th September, 1992, and has
considered the arguments and the points made by both sides to the
dispute.
The Court would fault the company for a lack of consultation with
the worker. She was employed in the area which the company had
decided to restructure, and it would have helped the situation if
she had been involved in the discussions about the changes that
were needed, and the most suitable personnel to effect those
changes. But the Court is satisfied that there was no
discrimination within the meaning of the Act against the worker.
The company was a small one, and it was normal to promote workers
within the company, without interview. The Company's priority was
to secure the relevant skills to implement instructions from
Headquarters. The appointee not only had these skills, but had
also proved himself to be reliable, whereas there was some
dissatisfaction with the worker's record of unpredictable sick
leave. The Court cannot conclude that the failure to consider the
worker for the new position or to appoint her was in any way
related to her sex or marital status. The Court holds that there
was no discrimination against the worker, and rejects the appeal.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE921 DETERMINATION NO. DEE793
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
S21(1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES: AVIS RENT-A-CAR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
MS. E. O'SULLIVAN
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Agency, against Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EE23/1991 concerning an allegation that Ms.
O'Sullivan was discriminated against contrary to Section 2 of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 in breach of Section 3 of that Act
by denying her access to a promotional opportunity, and, by
denying her the promotion itself.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EE23/1991 which is attached to this
Determination as appendix 1.
3. The Employment Equality Agency appealed the Equality Officer's
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 21 of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 on the following grounds:
"(i) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that Avis Rent-A-Car Ltd did not discriminate
against Ms. O'Sullivan, contrary to the term of the
1977 Act, in not interviewing her for the position of
Leasing Administration Supervisor;
(ii) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that the employer did not discriminate against
the claimant contrary to the 1977 Act, in not offering
her the position of Leasing Administration Supervisor
and promoting Mr. Magee to the position instead;
(iii) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
not awarding appropriate compensation to Ms. O'Sullivan
for the discrimination against her and the distress
caused; and
(iv) such other grounds as may arise during the appeal
hearing".
4. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 29th September, 1992.
The parties made written submissions which are attached as
appendices 2 and 3. These submissions were expanded upon orally
at the Appeal Hearing.
DETERMINATION:
5. This is an appeal by the worker against the findings of an
Equality Officer (EE23/1991) that she was not discriminated
against in terms of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 ('the Act').
The worker had complained that she was denied access to a
promotional opportunity and denied the promotion itself and that
these denials constituted discrimination within the meaning of the
Act.
The worker claimed that as she had been carrying out the duties of
the position, and had had to train in the new appointee, she
should have been offered the chance to compete for appointment,
and should have been appointed.
The company made the case that its priority was to appoint a
person with computer skills in order to implement an instruction
from its European headquarters with regard to computerisation. It
had headhunted three individuals in the industry without success,
and as an alternative then looked at the option of restructuring
the section in question. The company decided to create a new
post, and appointed a male member of its existing staff to the
post.
The company claimed that the appointee was the most suitable
person for the post in that he had relevant computer experience,
he had more service with the company, and his service was more
relevant to the new needs of the company. The company further
claimed that the worker was less reliable than the appointee, with
a history of casual sick leave.
The Court heard the appeal on the 29th September, 1992, and has
considered the arguments and the points made by both sides to the
dispute.
The Court would fault the company for a lack of consultation with
the worker. She was employed in the area which the company had
decided to restructure, and it would have helped the situation if
she had been involved in the discussions about the changes that
were needed, and the most suitable personnel to effect those
changes. But the Court is satisfied that there was no
discrimination within the meaning of the Act against the worker.
The company was a small one, and it was normal to promote workers
within the company, without interview. The Company's priority was
to secure the relevant skills to implement instructions from
Headquarters. The appointee not only had these skills, but had
also proved himself to be reliable, whereas there was some
dissatisfaction with the worker's record of unpredictable sick
leave. The Court cannot conclude that the failure to consider the
worker for the new position or to appoint her was in any way
related to her sex or marital status. The Court holds that there
was no discrimination against the worker, and rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
30th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.