Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED922 Case Number: EEO936 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: J.C. DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - and - MS. YOLANDA MCEVOY, MS. JOYCE WALSH, MS. FRANCES PLACE,;MS. HELEN MULLALLY AND MS. MARGARET ROBINSON;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Alleged discriminatory dismissal of Ms. Yolanda McEvoy, Ms. Joyce Walsh, Ms. Frances Place, Ms. Helen Mullally and Ms. Margaret Robinson contrary to the terms of Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
at the hearing and, subsequently, arising from these the Court
sought details of the Company's financial position in relation to
the claim under Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
which related to the dismissal of the claimants by reason of
redundancy.
The Court is satisfied, on the basis of financial information
provided, that the Company's decision to restructure the business
arose directly from the necessity to stem financial losses.
The additional products on offer and the different methods of
selling resulted in the changed work organisation.
The Court does not find, therefore, that the workers were
discriminated against in relation to dismissal contrary to Section
3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
The Court, therefore finds that the claimants were not unfairly
dismissed from their employment within the meaning of Section 27
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED922 ORDER NO. EEO693
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES: J.C. DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
MS. YOLANDA McEVOY, MS. JOYCE WALSH, MS. FRANCES PLACE,
MS. HELEN MULLALLY AND MS. MARGARET ROBINSON
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged discriminatory dismissal of Ms. Yolanda McEvoy, Ms.
Joyce Walsh, Ms. Frances Place, Ms. Helen Mullally and Ms.
Margaret Robinson contrary to the terms of Section 27 of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the James Crean
Group plc. and is involved in the distribution of a wide range of
consumer goods for the Irish market.
3. In 1991 J.C. Distribution Limited merged with an associate
Company J.V. Daniel. The workers concerned were employed by that
Company as part-time sales representatives/merchandisers dealing
with a particular brand of hosiery. Following the merger
management decided to restructure the particular division. It was
decided to discontinue with part-time sales staff and replace them
with 2 full-time sales representatives. The Company advertised
the posts and invited the part-time sales people to apply for the
positions. All the part-time staff were dismissed, by reason of
redundancy, from 6th September, 1991. The part-time sales workers
applied for the full-time positions but were unsuccessful at the
interviews.
4. The workers considered that they were dismissed from their
employment so that the Company could employ two males in their
place and as a consequence they were discriminated against
contrary to the terms of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
5. The Employment Equality Agency referred a claim for unfair
dismissal on behalf of the five workers for investigation by the
Labour Court under Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act,
1977. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th October, 1992.
The parties submitted written submissions which were expanded upon
orally at the Court hearing.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Four of the workers were employed as sales
representatives/merchandisers. Their duties included taking
and delivering orders for Aristoc accounts and carrying out
all necessary functions regarding the maintenance of accounts
(details supplied to the Court). All had excellent work
records and never had any complaints regarding their work
performance. The fifth worker was employed as a merchandiser.
Her main duties involved collecting goods from the warehouse
and delivering them to retail outlets. Her work record was
also very positive.
2. In view of their work experience and records the workers
believe that the men who replaced them were less suitable for
the work involved.
3. The Company perceived the question of mobility to be an
issue in relation to the continued employment for the
claimants. However, in view of the claimants past work record
as sales representatives this should not have been the case.
4. During the course of an interview with one of the
claimants the interviewer made several references to the
"lads" who would be employed in these sales positions.
5. The Court is asked to award compensation to the claimants
in respect of the discrimination against them, the financial
loss arising from that discrimination and the distress caused
to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company reorganised the sales area for economic
reasons (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company did not discriminate against any of its
employees. Every opportunity was afforded to the claimants to
attend and be successful at interview. The interviews were
conducted in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner
and the Company refutes the allegations concerning the "lads"
who will get the job.
3. The credentials of the two appointees out weigh those of
the other candidates (details supplied to the Court).
ORDER:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
at the hearing and, subsequently, arising from these the Court
sought details of the Company's financial position in relation to
the claim under Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
which related to the dismissal of the claimants by reason of
redundancy.
The Court is satisfied, on the basis of financial information
provided, that the Company's decision to restructure the business
arose directly from the necessity to stem financial losses.
The additional products on offer and the different methods of
selling resulted in the changed work organisation.
The Court does not find, therefore, that the workers were
discriminated against in relation to dismissal contrary to Section
3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
The Court, therefore finds that the claimants were not unfairly
dismissed from their employment within the meaning of Section 27
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
~
Signed on behalf of Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
14th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.