FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY BCM HANBY WALLACE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE9/97 and appeal by the worker for a determination that EE9/97 has not been implemented.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Eagle Star Insurance Company (Ireland) Limited ('the Company') since July, 1984. From December, 1993 to June, 1995 he held a discounted joint motor policy with his female partner. The policy was reviewed for renewal purposes in May, 1996 and, as a result, it was amended to make the worker the main policy holder and his female partner a named driver.
The worker was dissatisfied with the change in the policy and claimed that he had been treated less favourably than a person of the same sex but of a different marital status, amounting to discrimination under the Employment Equality Act 1977 ('the Act'). The worker lodged his complaint with the Labour Court ('the Court') in November, 1995 and the Court referred the complaint to an Equality Officer for investigation and recommendation. Following her investigation the Equality Officer found that the Company had discriminated against the worker in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act, and in contravention of Section 3 of the Act and recommended that the Company revise its motor insurance policy for staff so as to provide equal treatment for both single and married staff. The Equality Officer further recommended that the Company pay the worker £1,000 by way of compensation for stress caused as a result of its actions.
On the 19th May, 1997 the Company appealed the Recommendation to the Court on the following grounds:-
(1) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in holding that the Appellant discriminated against the Respondent.
(2) The Equality Officer erred in law in her interpretation of the definition of 'marital status'.
(3) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in holding that the Respondent had suffered stress as a result of the alleged actions of the Appellant.
(4) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact and acted in excess of her jurisdiction in making a finding that the Respondent be compensated for stress.
(5) The Equality Officer failed to have regard to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1977.
(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing the Appellant reserves the right to adduce such further or other grounds as may be appropriate to the Appeal by it of the recommendation of the Equality Officer on the hearing of the Appeal.
On the 28th of May, 1997 the worker appealed to the Labour Court for a determination that Recommendation No. EE09/1997 has not been implemented.
The Court heard the appeal on the 11th November, 1997. Both parties made written submissions to the Court which were expanded upon orally during the hearing.
DETERMINATION:
The Court heard submissions from both parties on 11th November, 1997. The kernel of the case and the appeal was whether a single person had a marital status and could therefore claim discrimination under Section 2(b) of the Act. The Section referred to states:-
"Discrimination shall be taken to occur where because of his marital status a person is treated less favourably than another person of the same sex".
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Equality Officer found in favour of the claimant stating inter-alia "I find that the Company treats married persons more favourably than single persons by providing them with a discounted policy for two cars while the single person only receives a discount for one car. In this case if the claimant was married he would benefit from a joint motor insurance policy. However as he is single he is denied the benefit and is thus being directly discriminated against on the basis of his marital status within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Employment Equality Act".
The Company argued that the notion of a common law wife or partner is not recognised in Irish law, and that for the purposes of the Act, the claimant has no marital status. It submitted that the expression 'marital status' connotes only one relationship, namely that of marriage.
The Court is satisfied that the discrimination prohibited by Section 2(b) is discrimination against a person because of his status as a married person or as a non-married person. The Court has to ask itself whether a person is treated differently, and less favourably, from another person because of the fact that he is or is not married.
In this case, the claimant is not allowed a discounted motor insurance policy in respect of his female partner because he is not married to her. He is therefore treated less favourably than a married employee in the circumstances that both have partners, but one is legally married to his partner, and the other (the claimant) is not.
The end result is that the married employee is entitled to the benefit of a discounted policy on two cars, while a single, or non-married, person is only entitled to a discounted policy on one car.
The Court finds that this advantage of the married employee amounts to less favourable treatment of the single, or non-married employee, including the claimant. The Court consequently upholds the Recommendation of the Equality Officer, and determines that there was discrimination by the Company against the claimant.
The Court also upholds the Recommendation of the Equality Officer in respect of compensation, and awards to the claimant the sum of £1,000, which the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd December, 1997______________________
F.B./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.