FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 27, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : A COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY TERRY O'DRISCOLL B.L. INSTRUCTED BY KEVIN CROWLEY & CO., SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DEANE & PARTNERS, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker in contravention of Section 26(1), and Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in a clerical capacity on 27th November, 1995. Her duties involved general clerical work, reception duties, keeping of accounts, and secretarial work. Her employment ceased on the 27th May, 1996. The worker claims that shortly after she commenced, and during the period of her employment she was subjected to unwarranted verbal sexual harassment by her immediate employer who was one of the Directors of the Company. The worker claims that because she objected to and protested against the sexual harassment she was unfairly dismissed on the 27th May, 1996.
The Company rejected the allegations of sexual harassment and unfair dismissal.
On the 26th November, 1996 the worker referred the complaint to the Labour Court under Section 27 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court investigated the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act at a hearing held in Cork on the 10th September, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee alleged that a Director of the Company made personal remarks which were suggestive, loaded with innuendo and intrusive. She stated that she complained, and that the Director gave an undertaking to only speak to her on work-related matters.
However, the comments continued according to her evidence. The worker believed that her ultimate dismissal was due to the fact that she complained about sexual harassment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer argued that the worker had failed to disclose any dismissal or constructive dismissal.
2. It also argued that the complaint was not made within the time limit prescribed by the 1977 Act.
3. The allegations of sexual harassment were denied.
4. The employer contended that the worker was dismissed for incompetence, inflexibility and a negative attitude towards her work, in relation to which she had received two warnings. It was denied that the dismissal was related to allegations of sexual harassment by the worker.
ORDER:
1. Preliminary issue:-
The Court has considered the argument made by the employer that the complaint was actually one of sexual harassment, rather than one relating to a dismissal, and that it was made outside of the statutory time limit of six months required by Section 19 of the 1977 Act.
The Court rejects this argument. The claim made by the worker was of dismissal arising from complaints by her to her employer that she was being sexually harassed. The relevant date for the purposes of the Act is therefore the date of the dismissal, which occurred on 27th May 1996. The complaint arising from the dismissal was dated 26th November 1996, and was accordingly made within the time limit laid down by the Act.
2. Substantive issue:-
The Court has considered the evidence presented. The worker gave a detailed account of the incidents and remarks which she alleged amounted to sexual harassment. She stated that in March of 1996 she complained to her employer about his behaviour. She claimed that for some days no conversation at all took place between them, but that subsequently he reverted again to the behaviour to which she had taken exception. She was dismissed on 27th May 1996, and she believed that the dismissal was the result of her complaints.
The respondent claimed that the dismissal of the worker was due to her unsatisfactory work performance, of which he gave details. It was also argued that the worker may have been overly sensitive due to her experiences in a previous employment.
Having considered the evidence presented by both parties in this case, the Court is not satisfied that there was a link between complaints made by the worker and her dismissal some two months later. In the circumstances, the Court cannot be satisfied that the complaint is well-founded and it rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th November, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Order should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.