Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE949 Case Number: DEE951 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by Union against Equality Officer's recommendation No. EE8/1994.
Recommendation:
3. A preliminary point of law was raised by the Company in its
written submission to the Court in relation to this appeal. In
essence the Company submitted that as the Equality Officer's
Recommendation is dated 10th June, 1994, the notice of appeal
specifying the Grounds should have been lodged not later than 21st
July, 1994. Section 21(3)(d) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
states:-
"An appeal under this Section shall be lodged in the Court
not later than 42 days after the date of the relevant
recommendation under Section 19 and the notice shall specify
the grounds of the appeal".
Notice of appeal in this case was received in the Court on 20th
July and the grounds of appeal were received on 22nd July, 1994.
In the Court's view the appeal is properly before the Court. The
first-day after the date of the Equality Officer's recommendation
is 11th June, and consequently the last date for receipt of the
appeal i.e. 42 days after the 11th June, is the 22nd July, 1994 -
the date on which the grounds of appeal were received.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Union representing the
appellant stated that it was not pursuing any appeal in relation
to sexual harassment.
Its appeal was confined to one issue, namely that as a result of a
complaint alleging sexual harassment (a complaint which was not
pursued), the appellant suffered discrimination contrary to
Section 2 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The onus of proof at appeal stage lies with the appellant.
The Court has considered all the evidence both written and oral
presented. It has also examined the report of the Equality
Officer, the method she used in her investigation and her
conclusions.
It is clear to the Court that a problem existed between the
appellant and her immediate supervisor.
The Court feels obliged to state that in the course of the
proceedings before it no allegation of sexual harassment was made
by the appellant or her representative. Several matters of an
industrial relations nature were raised, including an allegation
that the Company failed to apply proper and fair procedures in
relation to the appellant. The Court considers that the Company
in its actions may not have always applied what are usually
referred to as "good industrial relations" practices. Any such
failing however is not relevant to matter under appeal.
The Union further contended that the Equality Officer had failed
to establish that no prejudice or possibility of prejudice existed
on the Company's part in respect of its actions. The Court does
not find this submission sustained. The Equality Officer's report
is detailed and sets out clearly each step of the investigation,
and notes that the parties agreed with the method used. The Court
refers particularly to Para 5.1 of the Equality Officer's report
where she states interalia.
"However, subsequently, she (the appellant) confirmed at the
first joint hearing of this case that a claim alleging
sexual harassment had occurred had not been submitted by her
for investigation under the Act".
This clearly is at variance with the grounds of appeal which
states
"The Equality Officer erred in failing to officially
establish that the case of Sexual Harassment was formally
withdrawn with the claimant's knowledge and consent ......"
It is quite clear to the Court that at the Equality Officer's
investigation no such claim was being pursued.
On the basis of the evidence before it and the uncontradicted
details contained in the Equality Officer's report, the Court is
satisfied that the making of a complaint through her Staff
Association on the 5th June, 1992 was not the reason that the
appellant was re-deployed. There is sufficient evidence that
despite a previous excellent record her work performance prior to
that date had given the Company cause for concern.
There was no evidence to substantiate a claim that it was because
of her sex that the re-deployment occurred.
The Court accordingly is satisfied that the Company did not
discriminate against the appellant in accordance with Section 2 of
the Act of 1977.
For the reasons stated above the Court rejects the appeal and
upholds the Equality Officers recommendation No. EE08/1994.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE949 DETERMINATION NO. DEE195
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
(Represented by Eugene F Collins, Solicitors)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Union against Equality Officer's recommendation No.
EE8/1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background of this case is outlined in the Equality
Officer's recommendation No. EE08/1994, which is attached at
Appendix 1.
On 20th July, 1994, the Union appealed against the above
recommendation to the Labour Court on the following grounds:-
"That the Equality Officer erred in failing to officially
establish that the case of Sexual Harassment was formally
withdrawn with the Claimants knowledge and consent and
consequently did not eliminate the 'possibility' that the
issue motivated the Company to seek the Claimant's
re-deployment.
That the Equality Officer erred, in laws and in fact, in not
awarding an appropriate remedy and/or appropriate
compensation to her for the discrimination against her and
the distress caused and such other grounds as may arise
during the appeal hearing."
The Court heard the appeal on 26th January, 1995. The Company's
submission is attached at Appendix 2. The Union's submission is
attached at Appendix 3.
DETERMINATION:
3. A preliminary point of law was raised by the Company in its
written submission to the Court in relation to this appeal. In
essence the Company submitted that as the Equality Officer's
Recommendation is dated 10th June, 1994, the notice of appeal
specifying the Grounds should have been lodged not later than 21st
July, 1994. Section 21(3)(d) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
states:-
"An appeal under this Section shall be lodged in the Court
not later than 42 days after the date of the relevant
recommendation under Section 19 and the notice shall specify
the grounds of the appeal".
Notice of appeal in this case was received in the Court on 20th
July and the grounds of appeal were received on 22nd July, 1994.
In the Court's view the appeal is properly before the Court. The
first-day after the date of the Equality Officer's recommendation
is 11th June, and consequently the last date for receipt of the
appeal i.e. 42 days after the 11th June, is the 22nd July, 1994 -
the date on which the grounds of appeal were received.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Union representing the
appellant stated that it was not pursuing any appeal in relation
to sexual harassment.
Its appeal was confined to one issue, namely that as a result of a
complaint alleging sexual harassment (a complaint which was not
pursued), the appellant suffered discrimination contrary to
Section 2 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The onus of proof at appeal stage lies with the appellant.
The Court has considered all the evidence both written and oral
presented. It has also examined the report of the Equality
Officer, the method she used in her investigation and her
conclusions.
It is clear to the Court that a problem existed between the
appellant and her immediate supervisor.
The Court feels obliged to state that in the course of the
proceedings before it no allegation of sexual harassment was made
by the appellant or her representative. Several matters of an
industrial relations nature were raised, including an allegation
that the Company failed to apply proper and fair procedures in
relation to the appellant. The Court considers that the Company
in its actions may not have always applied what are usually
referred to as "good industrial relations" practices. Any such
failing however is not relevant to matter under appeal.
The Union further contended that the Equality Officer had failed
to establish that no prejudice or possibility of prejudice existed
on the Company's part in respect of its actions. The Court does
not find this submission sustained. The Equality Officer's report
is detailed and sets out clearly each step of the investigation,
and notes that the parties agreed with the method used. The Court
refers particularly to Para 5.1 of the Equality Officer's report
where she states interalia.
"However, subsequently, she (the appellant) confirmed at the
first joint hearing of this case that a claim alleging
sexual harassment had occurred had not been submitted by her
for investigation under the Act".
This clearly is at variance with the grounds of appeal which
states
"The Equality Officer erred in failing to officially
establish that the case of Sexual Harassment was formally
withdrawn with the claimant's knowledge and consent ......"
It is quite clear to the Court that at the Equality Officer's
investigation no such claim was being pursued.
On the basis of the evidence before it and the uncontradicted
details contained in the Equality Officer's report, the Court is
satisfied that the making of a complaint through her Staff
Association on the 5th June, 1992 was not the reason that the
appellant was re-deployed. There is sufficient evidence that
despite a previous excellent record her work performance prior to
that date had given the Company cause for concern.
There was no evidence to substantiate a claim that it was because
of her sex that the re-deployment occurred.
The Court accordingly is satisfied that the Company did not
discriminate against the appellant in accordance with Section 2 of
the Act of 1977.
For the reasons stated above the Court rejects the appeal and
upholds the Equality Officers recommendation No. EE08/1994.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th February, 1995 ------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman