Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: EED948 Case Number: EEO951 Section / Act: S27EE Parties: EASON AND SON LIMITED - and - MS. TERESA HYNES;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged constructive dismissal of the worker under Section 26 of the Employment Equality Act 1977.
Recommendation:
In considering this case the Court was faced with directly
conflicting evidence on several points. There were differences
between the parties as to what took place at various meetings and
critically the reason why the claimant resigned and is now
claiming constructive dismissal.
It is not disputed that, when the claimant indicated her intention
of pursuing a claim under the Anti Discrimination Act of 1974, an
effort was made to dissuade her. This in itself does not
constitute a breach of the Act. The differences in the evidence
from the parties relates to the period after the claim was lodged
and to the alleged actions of various employees.
Medical evidence was submitted on behalf of the claimant and the
Court has taken this into account.
The claimant had 15 years service with the Company. At no stage
was her performance considered inadequate in any way. Indeed, at
the hearing, the Sales Manager went out of his way to record his
satisfaction with her. The claimant also seemed satisfied with
her employment until during the course of a wage/salary review she
discovered that a colleague had been granted a higher rate of
remuneration. This in turn led to her claim under the Act of
1974. The "conflict" then arose.
The Court is satisfied that the climate of the claimant's
employment did change subsequent to the lodging of her claim. The
claimant herself could have dealt with this problem in a more
adequate manner. Nevertheless, the Court does accept the medical
evidence that she was being treated for stress, and considers that
stress may well have diminished her ability to deal with the
problem.
On the basis of the evidence the Court finds that the claimant's
reason for resigning was the change in climate in the employment,
and that this change had arisen because she had lodged a claim
under the Act of 1974.
The Court accordingly is satisfied that the complaint is well
founded.
The Court is further satisfied that the suitable remedy in this
case is compensation. In assessing the amount of compensation the
Court considers that the claimant herself contributed to the
problem in that she did not avail of the established grievance
procedures. Had these procedures been used, the need to resign
might have been avoided.
The Court, therefore, will make an Order directing the employer to
pay the sum of #1,000 compensation for the stress and upset
caused, which the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
EED948 ORDER NO. EEO195
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 26
PARTIES:
EASON AND SON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MS. TERESA HYNES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged constructive dismissal of the worker under Section 26
of the Employment Equality Act 1977.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a retailer and wholesaler of periodicals,
magazines, newspapers and stationary. The worker was
employed as a sales representative in the Company's
wholesale division. She commenced employment with the
Company in June, 1979.
2. In December, 1993 the Union referred a claim of
discrimination with regard to pay to the Labour Court
under the terms of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act,
1974. A preliminary hearing by an Equality Officer took
place on 30th August, 1994. The claim is still under
investigation and no recommendation was issued.
3. The worker alleges that, following the submission of the
equal pay claim, the atmosphere at work changed to one
of hostility. As a result, the worker alleges that she
was forced to resign. She resigned on 14th February,
1994.
4. On 22nd September, 1994 the claimant forwarded a
complaint of constructive dismissal to the Labour Court
under the relevant terms of the Employment Equality Act,
1977. On 15th March, 1995 the Court investigated as a
preliminary issue the late submission of the case under
Section 26(4) (time limit) of the Employment Equality
Act, 1977. The Court subsequently investigated the
substantive claim on 2nd August, 1995.
5. The parties' arguments are in their submissions which
are appendices 1 and 2 to this Order. The Court also
considered the oral submissions made at the
investigation and subsequent letters of clarification
from both parties.
ORDER:
In considering this case the Court was faced with directly
conflicting evidence on several points. There were differences
between the parties as to what took place at various meetings and
critically the reason why the claimant resigned and is now
claiming constructive dismissal.
It is not disputed that, when the claimant indicated her intention
of pursuing a claim under the Anti Discrimination Act of 1974, an
effort was made to dissuade her. This in itself does not
constitute a breach of the Act. The differences in the evidence
from the parties relates to the period after the claim was lodged
and to the alleged actions of various employees.
Medical evidence was submitted on behalf of the claimant and the
Court has taken this into account.
The claimant had 15 years service with the Company. At no stage
was her performance considered inadequate in any way. Indeed, at
the hearing, the Sales Manager went out of his way to record his
satisfaction with her. The claimant also seemed satisfied with
her employment until during the course of a wage/salary review she
discovered that a colleague had been granted a higher rate of
remuneration. This in turn led to her claim under the Act of
1974. The "conflict" then arose.
The Court is satisfied that the climate of the claimant's
employment did change subsequent to the lodging of her claim. The
claimant herself could have dealt with this problem in a more
adequate manner. Nevertheless, the Court does accept the medical
evidence that she was being treated for stress, and considers that
stress may well have diminished her ability to deal with the
problem.
On the basis of the evidence the Court finds that the claimant's
reason for resigning was the change in climate in the employment,
and that this change had arisen because she had lodged a claim
under the Act of 1974.
The Court accordingly is satisfied that the complaint is well
founded.
The Court is further satisfied that the suitable remedy in this
case is compensation. In assessing the amount of compensation the
Court considers that the claimant herself contributed to the
problem in that she did not avail of the established grievance
procedures. Had these procedures been used, the need to resign
might have been avoided.
The Court, therefore, will make an Order directing the employer to
pay the sum of #1,000 compensation for the stress and upset
caused, which the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.