FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : DUFFY GROUP LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE40/99 concerning an allegation of discrimination against a worker, contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and in terms of Section 2 of that Act.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 the 12th August, 1999, found that the Duffy Group Limited trading as Londis did not discriminate against the worker contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
- The Union claims that the worker was employed by the Company on two seperate occasions. The first period was from August, 1995 to November, 1996 (35 hrs per week) and the second period was from February, 1997 to March, 1998 (35½ hrs per week).
The first contract of employment described the worker as a sales assistant. He carried out the full range of duties associated with this grade as outlined in paragraph (1) of part two of the Retail, Grocery and Allied Trades Joint Labour Committee Order.
However, the claimant's second contract of employment described him as an "Ancillary Stores Person" and outlined his duties as " stocking shelves, merchandising, packing stores, checking orders, stock control, shop floor duties and general maintenance duties".
The Union claims that the worker was treated less favourably than female staff as the
worker was required to do the more physical work and was also not allowed to operate the cash register.
The Company rejected the Union's arguments and stated that in each of its stores, when a delivery of goods arrived, all staff are required, both male and female, to give assistance. The reason the worker was not allowed to operate the cash registar was simply because he was not trained in its operation. The Company rejects that there was any discrimination involved.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th September, 1999 on the following grounds:-
(a) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in the conclusions reached in paragraph 5.4.
(b) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in the conclusions reached in paragraph 5.5.
(c) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in the conclusions reached in paragraph 5.6.
(d) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in the conclusions reached in paragraph 5.7.
(e) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in the conclusions reached in paragraph 6.1.
The Court heard the appeal on the 26th April, 2000. Both sides expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing.
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by the claimant, represented by the Union, against an Equality Officer's recommendation. The Equality Officer had concluded that the Union had not substantiated its claim of direct discrimination in terms of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and found that the Company did not act improperly or with the clear intention of discriminating against the claimant.
The Union appealed the recommendation on the basis that the Equality Officer had erred in law and in fact on each of the four grounds of her conclusions and in her recommendation.
The Court is satisfied that no discrimination took place. The claimant was not treated less favourably than female staff. All staff were required to carry weights. The Court is satisfied that while the claimant was instructed not to operate the cash registers, this was for sound business reasons and was not a discriminatory act on behalf of the employer.
The Court is not satisfied that the Union has substantiated its claim that the Equality Officer erred in law or in fact on any of the four grounds, and similarly did not err in law or in fact on the basis of her Recommendation in 6.1.
The appeal by the Union is dismissed, and the Recommendation of the Equality Officer is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th June, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.