FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE13/99.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of ninety seven named female employees employed by Superquinn at its Sutton Branch, that they were refused permission to wear trousers at work. The Company rejects the claim.
The Union referred a claim on behalf of the ninety seven named female employees to the Labour Court under the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court referred the case to an Equality Officer for investigation. The Equality Officer issued her recommendation on the 21st of July, 1999. She found that the Company did not discriminate against the ninety seven claimants within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and in contravention of Section 3 of that Act.
On the 1st of September, 1999, the Labour Court received a notice of appeal of the Equality Officer's recommendation from the Union on the following grounds:-
"The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in paragraph 5.3 of the above recommendation.
The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in paragraph 5.4 of the above recommendation.
The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in paragraph 5.5 of the above recommendation.
The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in paragraph 5.6 of the above recommendation.
The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in paragraph 6.1 of the above recommendation".
The Court heard the appeal on the 9th of March, 2000. Both parties made written and oral submissions to the Court. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
In this case the Union claims that the Employer refused to allow named female members of its staff to wear trousers at work and that this refusal amounts to discrimination within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act 1977. The Employer denied the claim.
The Court does not consider that the provision of different styles of uniform to male and female staff is discriminatory per se. Discrimination may arise in circumstances in which female staff wish to wear trousers as part of the uniform and are refused the facility to do so by their employer.
In the present case, the claimants sought to wear trousers in the course of their employment. While there is some disagreement as to the response of local management to individual requests in that regard, there was no ambiguity as to the formal response of the Employer when the matter was raised by the Union on their behalf. It is clear from the correspondence provided to the Court that the Employer's Personnel Manager in her letter of the 8th of January 1998, was emphatic that the Company policy did allow female members of staff to wear trousers at work.
It is also clear that the Company were, at that stage, actively engaged in redesigning the uniform provided to female staff so as to accommodate the wearing of trousers. Moreover, in response to further enquiries made by the Union on behalf of the claimants, the Company formally advised that female members of staff would be permitted to wear their own trousers at work pending the provision of a new standard uniform.
The union contends that notwithstanding the stated position of the Company individual managers refused to allow the claimants to wear trousers. Whatever the position may have been in that regard, the Court is fully satisfied that the claimants were made aware, through their union of the formal position of the Company on the matter in dispute.
They had available to them a clear statement by the Personnel Manager to the effect that they could wear trousers if they so wished. It was open to each of the claimants to act on that statement, which they were entitled to accept as the definitive statement of Company policy without further reference to local management. Had they chosen to do so, the Court is fully satisfied that any ensuing difficulties would have been resolved in line with the Company's policy as conveyed to the Union.
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties the Court finds as a fact that at all material times the Employer pursued a policy of allowing female members of staff to wear trousers. The Court also finds that the claimants were aware of the stated position of the Company and were free to dress in accordance with the policy as conveyed to the Union.
For these reasons the Court does not accept that the claimants suffered discrimination within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act 1977 and their claim must fail.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April, 2000______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.