FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : EASTERN HEALTH BOARD (REPRESENTED BY L.G.S.N.B.) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE PSYCHIATRIC NURSES' ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE5/96 concerning an allegation that the Eastern Health Board discriminated against the worker contrary to the provisions of Section 2(a) and 2(c) of the 1977 Act in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The background to this case is set out in the Equality Officer's Recommendation (details with the Court). The Equality Officer in her recommendation, which was issued on 5th March, 1996, found that the Eastern Health Board did not discriminate against the worker in terms of Section 2(a) or 2(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 by refusing him time-off under the 39 Hour Agreement despite the fact that he had given adequate notice requesting the time-off.
2. The Psychiatric Nurses' Association appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 1996 on the following grounds:-
(a) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in concluding that theEastern Health Board did not discriminate against the claimant onthe grounds of his sex and contrary to Sections 2(a) and 2(c) of theAct and,
(b) Any other grounds of appeal that may arise during the course of theinvestigation.
The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd October, 1996. Both parties expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing.
3. The Union claims that the worker was obliged to remain on duty despite the fact
that the proportion of female nurses, which could have provided the nursing services required, was substantially higher. Over the past number of years the percentage of male nurses has dropped from 33% to 24%. Therefore a substantially greater proportion of persons of the other sex (female nurses) could have done this duty.
4. The Eastern Health Board claims that in some cases where the "specialing" of a particular patient is required, the gender of the nurse may be a factor in allocating the most suitable nurses for that assignment. Although the ward is staffed by both male and female nurses, a male nurse was required by the consultant psychiatrist for the task of "specialing" duty on that particular day.
DETERMINATION:
In considering this appeal the Court considered the written submissions from both parties and the verbal evidence given at the hearing. The Court also considered the arguments and reasons put forward by the Equality Officer in her report No. EE5/96.
The Court whilst not unsympathetic to some of the arguments made by the Psychiatric Nurses' Association, nevertheless finds that the conclusions of the Equality Officer are correct in law, and that the appellant has not been treated less favourably on the grounds of his sex.
The Court accordingly determines that the Eastern Health Board did not discriminate against the appellant in terms of Section 2(a) or 2(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court upholds the Equality Officer's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
4th November, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.