Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED9214 Case Number: EEO941 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: A COMPANY - and - A WORKER |
Claim, by the worker, that she was dismissed from her employment in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
Recommendation:
7. The Court gave careful consideration to the written and oral
statements made by the parties to the dispute.
On the evidence put forward, the Court is satisfied that the
behaviour of a member of staff was unacceptable to the claimant
and that she was subjected to treatment which was offensive and
intimidating.
Given the above, the Court had to consider if the behaviour was
such to which a worker of either sex might have been subjected.
The Court is satisfied that the offensive remarks were sexually
oriented and that no male worker of the Company would have had to
endure similar working conditions.
The Court is further satisfied that the employer was aware of the
behaviour of the employee concerned. Whilst the Company furnished
evidence that the offending employee had been "reprimanded .... in
no uncertain terms" the Court is satisfied that the use of
offensive remarks by the employee concerned to the claimant
continued after the reprimand and takes the view that the Company
should have taken steps against any such continuance. What
actually happened, instead, was that the claimant's employment was
terminated.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's dismissal was
discriminatory and in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act,
in that it would not have occurred were it not for the
claimant's reaction to the treatment to which she had been
subjected.
The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the complaint is
well-founded, and will make an Order directing the employer to pay
the complainant the sum of #1,000 compensation.
CLARIFICATION:
EED9214 EEO194
AN CHUIRT OIBREACHAIS
THE LABOUR COURT
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27.
Mary Lyons-Glynn - Complainant
and
Ultra Fashions Limited - Respondent
(In Receivership)
ORDER
A complaint having been referred to the Labour Court (hereinafter
called "the Court") by Ms. Mary Lyons-Glynn of 8 Treepark Drive,
Kilnamanagh, Dublin 24, under Section 27 of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977 that she was dismissed from her employment as a
result of a contravention of Section 3(4) of the said Act,
And the Court having investigated the complaint in accordance with
the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act on the 26th of March,
1993 and having heard all persons appearing to the Court to be
interested and desiring to be heard,
Is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded and that the
Respondent, Ultra Fashions Limited (In Receivership), with an
address care of Mr. Peter Brett, Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley, 1,
Stokes Place, Dublin 2, was guilty of the constructive dismissal
of the said Mary Lyons-Glynn.
Now, therefore, the Court, pursuant to the powers given to it
under Section 26(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, hereby directs the
the said Ultra Fashions Limited (In Receivership) to pay to the
said Mary Lyons-Glynn the sum of #1,000 compensation.
Given under the Official Seal
of the Labour Court on this
day of January, 1994.
____________________
Tom McGrath
Deputy Chairman.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED9214 ORDER NO. EEO194
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES: A COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY MURPHY TROY AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the worker, that she was dismissed from her
employment in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a sales
assistant and worked at two of its branches during her employment
from 26th August, 1991 to 17th January, 1992.
3. In October, 1991 a male sales assistant commenced employment.
The worker contends that she was subjected to personal abuse from
her colleague which amounted to sexual harassment (details
supplied to the Court). She complained to management about his
behaviour and was assured that the matter would be dealt with.
4. In January, 1992 the worker's employment was terminated. The
reason given for her dismissal was because of a fall-off in trade.
The worker referred a claim to the Labour Court under Section 27
of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, alleging that her dismissal
was related to her complaint of harassment. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 3rd March, 1993. Both parties submitted
written submissions which they expanded upon orally at the Court
hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker complained to management about the behaviour of
a colleague towards her. There was no improvement in her
colleague's behaviour subsequent to the complaint (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The worker rejects the reason given for her dismissal as
being due to economic circumstances because a worker with less
service was retained after she was let go.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company acted upon the complaint made by the worker
and reprimanded the individual concerned (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The worker was dismissed due to a decline in business
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The worker was offered Saturday work but declined the
offer.
ORDER:
7. The Court gave careful consideration to the written and oral
statements made by the parties to the dispute.
On the evidence put forward, the Court is satisfied that the
behaviour of a member of staff was unacceptable to the claimant
and that she was subjected to treatment which was offensive and
intimidating.
Given the above, the Court had to consider if the behaviour was
such to which a worker of either sex might have been subjected.
The Court is satisfied that the offensive remarks were sexually
oriented and that no male worker of the Company would have had to
endure similar working conditions.
The Court is further satisfied that the employer was aware of the
behaviour of the employee concerned. Whilst the Company furnished
evidence that the offending employee had been "reprimanded .... in
no uncertain terms" the Court is satisfied that the use of
offensive remarks by the employee concerned to the claimant
continued after the reprimand and takes the view that the Company
should have taken steps against any such continuance. What
actually happened, instead, was that the claimant's employment was
terminated.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's dismissal was
discriminatory and in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act,
in that it would not have occurred were it not for the
claimant's reaction to the treatment to which she had been
subjected.
The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the complaint is
well-founded, and will make an Order directing the employer to pay
the complainant the sum of #1,000 compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________
14th January, 1994. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
CLARIFICATION:
EED9214 EEO194
AN CHUIRT OIBREACHAIS
THE LABOUR COURT
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 27.
Mary Lyons-Glynn - Complainant
and
Ultra Fashions Limited - Respondent
(In Receivership)
ORDER
A complaint having been referred to the Labour Court (hereinafter
called "the Court") by Ms. Mary Lyons-Glynn of 8 Treepark Drive,
Kilnamanagh, Dublin 24, under Section 27 of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977 that she was dismissed from her employment as a
result of a contravention of Section 3(4) of the said Act,
And the Court having investigated the complaint in accordance with
the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act on the 26th of March,
1993 and having heard all persons appearing to the Court to be
interested and desiring to be heard,
Is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded and that the
Respondent, Ultra Fashions Limited (In Receivership), with an
address care of Mr. Peter Brett, Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley, 1,
Stokes Place, Dublin 2, was guilty of the constructive dismissal
of the said Mary Lyons-Glynn.
Now, therefore, the Court, pursuant to the powers given to it
under Section 26(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, hereby directs the
the said Ultra Fashions Limited (In Receivership) to pay to the
said Mary Lyons-Glynn the sum of #1,000 compensation.
Given under the Official Seal
of the Labour Court on this
day of January, 1994.
____________________
Tom McGrath
Deputy Chairman.