FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 77; EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT; 1998 PARTIES : EUROPEAN LIBRARY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY DANIEL SPRING & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY LENNON HEATHER & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged dismissal under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns an employee who commenced employment with the company on the 13th of September, 1999, in the capacity of Senior Analyst Consultant. He claims that he was discriminated against on the grounds of marital status by his dismissal on the 17th of January, 2000. The Company denies the claim.
The employee referred the claim of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, on the 27th of March, 2000. The Court investigated the dispute on the 26th of April, 2001, and on the 1st of June, 2001, the earliest suitable dates. Both parties made written submissions to the Court, which were expanded upon orally during the course of the hearings. The Court also heard sworn witness evidence on behalf of the Company.
DETERMINATION:
Claimant's Case:
The claimant’s case is that his dismissal, by its timing and manner, was a direct consequence of the Company’s apparent displeasure at being dragged into his divorce proceedings and matters relating to his marital status, consequently his dismissal falls within the meaning of Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.� He claims that, he was dismissed by his employers without notice or reason, he was discriminated against because of his involvement in divorce proceedings, and he was victimised by having his employment summarily terminated.
It is the claimant’s contention that an influential member of the staff of the European Library Solutions Limited took exception to being subpoenaed to attend the proceedings in his divorce case. Following the divorce case on the 13thJanuary, 2000 he spoke to the person who had represented the Company in Court, and she abused him about being dragged into his divorce case. She further e-mailed all the employees in the company outlining her position on attending Court.
He further claimed that there had been significant contact between his wife and the company in relation to these matters, contact of which he was completely unaware.
The claimant was employed in a position of Senior Analyst Consultant and spent some of his time trouble shooting on behalf of the company in the Middle East. He maintained that he carried out his duties in an entirely satisfactory manner and that, some weeks before his dismissal, the Managing Director had asked him if he was interested in replacing him, the Managing Director, as he was stepping down from the role.
On the 17thJanuary, 2000 the General Manager accompanied by the Managing Director informed the claimant that he was discharged from his employment. He requested reasons for his dismissal and was advised the Company was not obliged to give him any reasons. He claimed that he was dismissed without reason or notice.
Company Case:
The Company case is that its decision to terminate the claimant’s employment came after a number of oral warnings were given to him concerning his behaviour towards staff and customers. In addition, the claimant was failing in his role as Project Manager of the flagship project of the company. The project was well behind schedule due to his technical shortcomings, together with his lack of punctuality and unauthorised absences. His contract was subject to six months probation.
Because of these issues a decision was taken by the Board of Directors in Belgium that his contract was to be terminated. This decision was taken on the 5thJanuary, 2000 and conveyed to him on the 17thJanuary, 2000.
The Company argues strenuously that to suggest that the reason for his dismissal was anything to do with his divorce proceedings is irrational and not in line with the facts.
The Company during the course of the hearing also claimed that the claimant had misled the Company in relation to his qualifications, that he did not have the qualifications he had claimed at interview. It was established at the hearing that he did not have the claimed qualifications.
Court Findings:
The Court was presented with a number of witnesses who stated that the claimant was not managing the project successfully and that there were question marks about his technical competence.
On his managerial role there were also submissions made in relation to the negative attitudes that arose in the company, as a result of his management style. However, his superior, the then Managing Director, implied to the Court that he would have expected tensions in this area and did not seem to see these problems as dismissal issues.
The Court accepts that the Project was behind schedule, but is of the view that the claimant may not have realised that his job was at risk, given the management style of the then Managing Director. The Court accepts that the then Managing Director may have spoken to the claimant, but because of his management style and personality, he may not have emphasised exactly how serious the position was.
If, as the Company claimed, the decision to dismiss him was taken on the 5thJanuary, the arguments made by the claimant that he was dismissed as a result of the Company being brought into his marital affairs is not sustainable. The Company claimed it only became aware of his marital problems just before the Court hearing. While the claimant claimed in his submission that there had been extensive discussions between his wife and the Company this does not appear to have been the case.
While the claimant’s representative raised queries in relation to the authenticity of the letter of the 5th January, instructing the General Manager to dismiss, the Court accepts the Company position on its date of origin.
Decision:
The case before the Court is under the 1998 Equality Act and the claim is that he was dismissed because of the Company involvement in his marital affairs. The Court finds no evidence to suggest that the Company dismissed the claimant as a result of having been drawn into his marital affairs, and, therefore, the claim fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th July, 2001______________________
D.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.