Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE943 Case Number: DEE946 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - THE PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Association against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE20/1993 concerning the alleged discrimination against a worker by re-rostering.
Recommendation:
3. 1. The Court is satisfied, as a matter of fact, that the
worker was redeployed from male ward 6 to the assessment
unit because he was considered the most suitable nurse
to fill the vacancy in the assessment unit on the
particular night. The Court has found no evidence to
support the claim that the redeploying of the worker to
the assessment unit was less favourable treatment, nor
that he was chosen 'by reason of his sex'. The claim
under section 2(a) therefore fails.
2. The Court is also satisfied that there was no indirect
discrimination against the worker. He was re-rostered
for one night to the assessment unit. Rostering
arrangements are a matter for management; there was no
imposition of any requirement which was not already part
of the worker's terms of employment, and indeed, those
terms were part of all nurses', male and female, terms
of employment. The claim under section 2(c) therefore
also fails.
3. Finally, the Court has found no evidence of any kind to
substantiate the claim under section 2(d) that the
worker was penalised for taking action in pursuance of
an entitlement under the Act, and rejects the claim
under this head.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE943 DETERMINATION NO. DEE694
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES:
MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
AND
THE PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Association against Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EE20/1993 concerning the alleged
discrimination against a worker by re-rostering.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The background to this case is set out in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation which is appendix 1 to this
Determination. The Equality Officer, in her
Recommendation which was issued on 16th December, 1993,
found that the Board did not discriminate against the
worker when he was reassigned nor did the Board penalise
the worker for taking action in pursuance of an
entitlement under the Act.
2. On 24th January, 1994, the Association of behalf of the
worker, appealed against the Equality Officer's
Recommendation. The Association's letter of appeal is
attached as appendix 2.
3. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 11th May, 1994 in
Portlaoise. The parties' written submissions are
attached as appendices 3 and 4. Both parties submitted
additional oral evidences at the appeal which was
considered by the Court.
4. The appellant claims the he suffered discrimination by
the Board in terms of section 2(a), (c) and (d) of the
Act.
The grounds for the appeal by the Association on behalf
of the appellant, are:
(i) That misleading or false information was supplied
by the Management of the Board, on foot of which,
the Equality Officer based her Recommendation;
(ii) That there were inaccuracies in the conclusion and
Recommendation of the Equality Officer.
DETERMINATION:
3. 1. The Court is satisfied, as a matter of fact, that the
worker was redeployed from male ward 6 to the assessment
unit because he was considered the most suitable nurse
to fill the vacancy in the assessment unit on the
particular night. The Court has found no evidence to
support the claim that the redeploying of the worker to
the assessment unit was less favourable treatment, nor
that he was chosen 'by reason of his sex'. The claim
under section 2(a) therefore fails.
2. The Court is also satisfied that there was no indirect
discrimination against the worker. He was re-rostered
for one night to the assessment unit. Rostering
arrangements are a matter for management; there was no
imposition of any requirement which was not already part
of the worker's terms of employment, and indeed, those
terms were part of all nurses', male and female, terms
of employment. The claim under section 2(c) therefore
also fails.
3. Finally, the Court has found no evidence of any kind to
substantiate the claim under section 2(d) that the
worker was penalised for taking action in pursuance of
an entitlement under the Act, and rejects the claim
under this head.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.