Quilter (Represented by Martin, EAP Consultant) V Kerry Agri Business
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Noreen Quilter that Kerry Agri Business discriminated against her in terms of Sections 6(1), 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act when she was not promoted or had her position regraded or reclassified. Ms. Quilter also alleges that she was subjected to victimisation by Kerry Agri Business in terms of Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant has been in the employment of the respondent organisation for a period of 39 years. She alleges that she has not been promoted, regraded or had her post reclassified in that time despite her level of experience and industry knowledge and despite taking on additional responsibilities on a regular basis. It is the complainant's contention that the respondent's failure to promote or regrade her or to reclassify her post is discrimination within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The respondent denies the allegations.
2.2 Consequently the complainant referred a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations on 5th December, 2002 under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of that Act the Director then delegated the case to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 18th December, 2002 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. Submissions were received from both parties to the claim and a joint hearing took place on 5th September, 2003. Additional information was received from the respondent on 3rd October, 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The complainant states that despite taking on additional responsibilities on a regular basis the grading of her post remained the same. According to the complainant responsibilities or posts were regraded when they transferred from someone more senior to the complainant which had the effect of keeping her at the same level despite her work being more demanding. The complainant states that she was not promoted to a higher level in the organisation despite taking on higher level work and accumulating industry experience, knowledge and skills. The complainant says that she was the longest serving employee in the respondent organisation but on the lowest grade and lowest salary.
3.2 The complainant states that her responsibilities have grown in scope and responsibility over the years but the grading of her post has never reflected this. Promotion has not been made available even when she has taken on the roles of other senior qualified and professional employees such as in 1988 when the complainant took over Transport Administration from an accountant and trainee accountant. The complainant took over the responsibilities of this post but subsequently the post was regraded and the complainant's salary and promotional opportunities did not match those of the previous incumbents of this post. It is the complainant's submission that after 39 years her position in the organisation has not improved despite taking on the vast majority of tasks and responsibilities, at every level, in connection with the Dairy and Agricultural business. The roles undertaken have been regraded as less senior after she took them on.
3.3 The complainant states that over the years she took on many roles and responsibilities that necessitated a learning and readjustment process and relocation. She says that she has demonstrated her commitment and willingness to accommodate the respondent organisation and in so doing accumulated valuable industry knowledge and experience as well as technical, accountancy and IT skills. The complainant notes that, like other employees, she was never given a Performance Appraisal Interview or opportunities for formal Training and Development. There was no structure in place for assisting or enabling employees to develop their career in the organisation. In the absence of these structures the complainant says that she has made repeated requests for training (and salary increases) in line with her increased responsibilities. In the late 1970s she was told that in order to move from the lower paid clerical grade to a better paid secretarial grade much typing experience was necessary. According to the complainant she had in fact completed a secretarial course and could have picked up speed with practice. The complainant says that she was discouraged from her ambition to better her position. More recently the complainant has had ECDL training which she and other employees requested but they had to do it in their own time.
3.4 The complainant states that the culture in the organisation to date has been one in which personal and professional development has not been part of the Human Resource Philosophy. According to the complainant it is recognised that the Dairy and Agricultural Industry has had a gender bias against females stemming from traditional views of the value of women's contribution to farming. The complainant says that she joined the respondent organisation in 1963 prior to the implementation to gender equality legislation. However despite the introduction of equality legislation and changing attitudes towards gender equality the complainant says that the respondent organisation has failed to address issues that would have provided more rewarding careers, especially to women. The complainant says that women with long service, like her, have lost out because of the lack of structures and Human Resource initiatives to provide them with equal opportunities and 'careers' as opposed to jobs. Without judging the respondent organisation for their traditional custom and practice, what it has meant for the complainant is that she has had to 'stand up and be counted' which she says has made her unpopular with management.
According to the complainant employees with less experience and service have been given higher pay and she was the lowest paid employee in the respondent organisation despite having the longest service.
3.5 The complainant says that the duties and tasks of her posts, despite requiring equal or more skill and experience compared to other employees, were considered to be of less value. This the complainant contends justified paying her less than other employees who had less service, less skill and less industry knowledge. The complainant notes that an employee on her first day of employment with the respondent organisation was earning a higher salary than her after 39 years of service as the post of the new employee was classified as being of higher grade than her post despite her 39 years of service in accountancy, bookkeeping and purchasing. It is the complainant's submission that a breakdown of the duties of employees in the respondent organisation demonstrates that there was no objective reason for the classification of her post relative to other employees. The complainant says that if she was expected to take on work previously carried out by others, that post was classified differently. A recent example of this relates to a job that was offered to her in Listowel. According to the complainant she was asked to take on a job which is being carried out be two Creamery Managers (Dairy Science graduates). The complainant says that the job title had been changed and she was expected to do it on her existing salary which is less that half that of a creamery manager. She was asked previously in 1994 to take on a position of creamery manager in Kilcolman on her existing salary. The complainant says that the offer of this position was simply to fill a gap where difficulties had arisen and the Manager had been moved.
3.6 Throughout the 1970s the complainant requested an explanation for her low salary and she also requested help from the respondent organisation in providing her with training so that she could have better opportunities. In 1978 she was asked by the respondent to transfer to another Department and she was put on a respondent salary and led to believe that she would be better off with an annual salary review. After 1978 the complainant says that she recognised that her salary increases were meagre under the respondent salary scheme. She says that in the absence of an incremental structure and a Performance Appraisal System salary increases were the decision of the Department Manager and were not based on their perception of employees' performance. The complainant says that there was no objective tools for measuring performance because no targets were set as part of an appraisal system. Rather pay increases were based on guidelines from senior management. According to the complainant there was no job description provided for any of the posts she undertook. A clear understanding of standards of work, targets, criteria for satisfactory performance in her post was not available to her or indeed to other employees. The complainant states that she sought to improve her grade and salary by showing a willingness to take on anything that the respondent requested which meant taking on new roles, learning new procedures, software, accounts packages, office equipment. According to the complainant she was clearly regarded as a valuable resource and she has been asked on several occasions to provide training for new employees.
3.7 The complainant says that in 1984 she was transferred to the Accounts Department. Key people in this Department had not been consulted and did not agree with her being transferred there. When she entered the Department she says that she sensed hostility. There was no induction, no formal introductions, no training and no job description. The complainant says that she was not introduced to the supervisor and in her opinion she was set up to fail. It is the complainant's submission that the supervisor who had only three years service felt intimidated by the presence of a senior, long serving member of staff. The complainant set about trying to learn the computer system herself and this she says was the start of her difficulties. According to the complainant after three weeks in the Accounts Department the Financial Controller admonished her in an 'uncontrolled' manner in front of the supervisor and told her that her performance was unacceptable. The complainant says she had worked in the respondent organisation for 21 years at this stage. It is the complainant's submission that the situation was difficult with poor communications and resentment from both the supervisor and the Financial Controller.
3.8 The complainant says that in 1986 she received no salary increase at all and when she questioned this she was told that her performance did not warrant an increase.
According to the complainant she had not received any performance appraisal or informal indication about what performance or targets she should be reaching and had received no training or support. The complainant says that she pursued the issue and was asked if she would take redundancy and when she showed no interest in this she was told that if she would not take redundancy she would be dismissed. According to the complainant the Personnel Manager became involved and put pressure on her to take redundancy. She says that he asked her if she would take an Unfair Dismissals case and when she said that she would she was transferred to the Agri Business Division. The complainant says that she suffered enormously from stress knowing that the respondent wanted her out and her self-esteem plummeted, a situation which continued for several years. According to the complainant this prolonged stress manifested itself in physical illness and she underwent major surgery in 1989.
3.9 The complainant states that in 1987, after being asked to take redundancy or be dismissed, she joined a Union. She did so at a time when no other staff member was in a Union and a case was brought to the Labour Court for loss of salary. During the Labour Court case she was again offered redundancy which she refused. It was at this stage that she was transferred to the Agri Business Division to take on another new role in Sales. Again the complainant was given no specific job description and there was little done to accommodate her. The complainant says that she spent the first two weeks shredding paper. Consequently she suffered physical symptoms associated with high levels of stress. The complainant states that in 1988 she had taken over the Transport Administration from the accountant and trainee accountant and in 1990 was asked to help the new transport manager as much as she could and to take on the taxation of the fleet. The complainant says that she was told that it would be made 'worth her while' but at a subsequent pay review it was not mentioned.
3.10 The complainant says that in 1992 her salary review did not include any pay increase as promised for taking on work of professionally qualified employees as well as extra duties. According to the complainant it was mentioned to her that 'she had been in a bit of trouble before' and she was referred to the Department Head to plead her case. When the complainant reminded the Department Head about his promise to reward her for taking on extra responsibilities she alleges that he said 'you don't take on the Financial Controller of this company and expect to be compensated for it'. According to the complainant she has been offered other positions by the Department Head which she considers were unreasonable and she believes that this was an attempt to create a constructive dismissal situation for example she was offered a position of Garage Storesperson in the early 1990s and in 1994 the job in Kilcolman Creamery as the manager was being moved. The complainant states that neither of these jobs were a reward for performance or service. Rather they were a way of sidelining her as the jobs did not relate to her experience and she would again have to relocate to them. When the complainant asked about her salary for the job of Garage Storesperson she was told "we'll see how you get on and look at it next year". When the complainant refused the Kilcolman job she was told that her job at Head Office may not last. The complainant says that this practice of expecting an employee to take on extra duties before negotiating a salary increase would generally not be supported by Trade Unions.
3.11 The complainant states that in 1996 the stress of her work situation was still affecting her health and she was diagnosed with hypertension and has had to take medication for this since that time. She also has to use an inhaler. Also she became very ill with shingles and pneumonia and was absent from work for four weeks. According to the complainant she was offered a 3% increase in her salary in 2000 along with all the other females in the Agri Division of the respondent organisation. The complainant says that she was aware that her salary was poor relative to others inside and outside the industry considering her position and length of service. She made a verbal complaint about her salary and was told that her salary was fair. The other females in the section were also dissatisfied with their salary and joined the Union. The complainant says that in 2000 she was asked to take on the work performed by the assistant transport manager and this request was justified by saying that there was some duplication of work between the two. According to the complainant there was no increase in salary or grade offered and the complainant was promised that in the future there may be a 'modest increase'. After this the complainant says that she received a IR£500 increase in her salary without any explanation for it.
3.12 The complainant says that in 2000 it was announced the Agri Business section was being moved and members of the Department were being offered redundancy. According to the complainant she discovered at an open Union meeting that her salary was well below that of everyone in the Department. The complainant says that the biggest discrepancy was between her and the only male who was on twice her salary. According to the complainant she was diagnosed with an inflamed duodenal ulcer resulting from a build-up of tension which triggered off the ulcer initially.
3.13 The complainant claims that as a result of attempting to stand up for herself by requesting salary increases, joining the Union at a time when no-one else was a member and taking action against the company through the Labour Court, she was victimised. According to the complainant the victimisation has taken the form of passive bullying deliberately undermining and humiliating her. The complainant says that she has been denied reasonable pay increases even after she was persuaded to take on demanding work loads. It is the complainant's contention that she was offered positions which were far from being a reward for good service to the respondent organisation rather they were designed to sideline her. The complainant feels that the taking of an action to the Labour Court through her Union has cost her dearly. She says that the percentage pay increases given to members of the Department are testimony to the fact that there is a lack of objectivity in evaluating performance and allocating pay rises. It is the complainant's submission that paying a male employee, whose work is perceived as equal in value, a salary almost double her own and paying a new recruit a higher salary than that being paid to her is an insult to her (the complainant) and cannot be justified by indicators of performance, skill, competence or experience. According to the complainant she was part of the original organisation before the amalgamation of the creameries and has experienced all the structural and industrial changes. Consequently the complainant claims that she should have been rewarded for her service and seniority rather every effort was made to undermine her so that she would leave. When this did not happen she was offered redundancy and when she refused this she was threatened with dismissal. The
complainant states that she has felt pressure to leave the organisation for a number of years and the catalogue of events has caused mental trauma and serious physical ill health resulting in medical treatment which has been costly on a personal and financial basis.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
4.1 In relation to the alleged claim of victimisation the respondent notes that the Employment Equality Act, 1998 specifically protects a complainant against being penalised in any way by their employer, or by another person, as a result of making a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations about possible discrimination, or of otherwise opposing or giving evidence about unlawful discriminatory conduct. Such behaviour is called victimisation. The respondent notes that since no prior case was taken to the Director of Equality Investigations and since the first time that it became aware that such a case i.e. this case, was being taken was mid December, 2002 the complainant's claim of victimisation is null and void.
4.2 In relation to the claim by the complainant of alleged discriminatory treatment the respondent states that the complainant started her working life in a clerical position in Abbeydorney Co-operative Creamery in 1963 which became part of the Kerry Co-op in 1973 and in January, 2003 the complainant decided, having spent a number of months deliberating on her options to take voluntary redundancy. The respondent says that in her route to this decision the complainant developed a 'commercial perspective' dropping her Union (SIPTU) who had represented her in negotiations and of whom she was a member for 15 years and hired an independent consultant. According to the respondent it only became aware of this in December, 2002 when it received communication from the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations where the respondent says various non-factual allegations were made e.g. "my position in the department is redundant as from December, 31st 2002. I have been offered only the Statutory redundancy package which is dependant on my present salary. My pension is also dependant on my present salary. This issue is therefore very urgent". The respondent states that in relation to the foregoing the complainant has stated two untruths namely she, like her colleagues, was offered the respondent organisation's severance package (if she wished to chose same) of 4 weeks pay per year of reckonable service plus ½ week's wages for each year under 41 years of age plus 4 weeks pay per year of service in addition to 1 weeks pay (statutory ceiling applying) for each year over 41 years of age (+ 1 Bonus week in line with legislation).
The respondent also states that the complainant did not have to become redundant as she could have transferred with her position to Charleville or take up a proposed new clerical position in Listowel.
4.3 The respondent denies the complainant's contention that she was the lowest paid in the "office". According to the respondent there were three other people in the office paid less than the complainant up to January, 2002 with salaries ranging from €19,047 to €20,062 while the complainant was earning €20,951. Another person was on the same salary as the complainant and the length of service of these other persons ranged from 9 to 14 years. In the performance review of January, 2002 one of these persons was brought up to the same salary as the complainant while the other two remained at a lower pay to the complainant. The respondent notes that two other persons, whom the complainant refers to as being paid higher than her, had their own Milk Quota office and their salaries also had historical backgrounds and one of these two persons was a subject expert performing a management role. According to the respondent another person referred to by the complainant as having "one year's service" was an external candidate appointed as executive secretary to the Chief Executive of the Agri/ Dairy Division through open competition. The respondent says that this position was advertised internally but the complainant did not apply. It is the respondent's submission that there is no record of the complainant having applied for any position. The respondent states that the person appointed to the position of executive secretary had a starting salary of €20,955 which was subsequently increased to reflect the highly confidential nature of her position and her performance.
4.4 The respondent states that all three of the complainant's hierarchical superiors during 1984 to 1988 period were female including the Financial Controller and when she transferred thereafter to the Agri Division the Financial Head was also female. According to the respondent all these people are held in high esteem by the respondent organisation for their professionalism, competence and integrity. In response to the complainant's allegation that the 'organisation has failed to address issues that would have provided more rewarding careers, especially for women' the respondent says that it has developed one of the most advanced graduate recruitment programmes In Ireland and has developed training programmes which have seen most of its operations in the country being granted "Excellence Through People Awards".
4.5 The respondent states that the current Financial Controller has indicated that the complainant never requested or hinted at a change even though others would have indicated this during reviews. According to the Financial Controller she did what she was given but was not enthusiastic. During her working life, the respondent says, the complainant had an extraordinary opportunity for both personal and professional development working as she was to some of the most professionally competent and entrepreneurial professionals in the country. However she has put forward the notion that as a result of taking a Labour Court case she has been discriminated against ever since. The respondent notes that when this claim was brought in December, 2002 none of the complainant's hierarchical superiors (namely the Chief Executive of the Division, the Financial Controller and the Chief Accountant with service in the Division of 7, 11 and 7 years respectively) were aware of the Labour Court case and no documentation regarding same could be found. According to the respondent management personnel within Divisions of the respondent organisation change with some regularity hence it would not be unusual for management in given timeframes to be totally unaware of a Labour Court case involving one person many years ago. The respondent submits that it was not possible for it to discriminate as alleged by the complainant.
4.6 The respondent notes that the complainant has alleged that "responsibilities or posts were regraded when they transferred from someone more senior to her" and says that this is a distortion of the facts.
- The complainant refers to her clerical role in compiling and presenting data for transport when she transferred to the Agri Division in 1988. According to the respondent this clerical role was carried out by another member of staff until she left in or around 1985 when it was subsumed into the role of anther more senior staff member on a caretaker basis until it was decided to extricate this work and give it to the complainant when she transferred to the Agri Division. The respondent says that it has for many years recruited several trainee accountants annually and during their training they are exposed to the greatest possible range of tasks from the bottom up so that when they progress through the organisation over the years they have the greatest possible degree of knowledge and can influence change in terms of systems design and effectiveness, etc. and contribute to decision making. The respondent notes that the complainant in her submission appears to be comparing herself with this group to some extent and speaks of people with less service and, in her opinion, with less skill and industry knowledge being paid more than her. According to the respondent the complainant's job did not require industry knowledge in the sense implied in her submission. The respondent says that substantial "industry knowledge" is applicable in varying degrees to decision makers 'up the line' and had no relevance to the complainant's job. Rather the complainant's job was a basic clerical role performed under the supervision of an accountant.
- The respondent notes that the complainant also alleges that she was asked to take on the role of "Creamery Manager" in Kilcolman in County Kerry in 1994 on her existing salary. The respondent denies this and says that the complainant was given the opportunity of working in a clerical role in Kilcolman which transpired as a result of a discussion between the Financial Controller and the Chief Executive Officer of the Agri Division.
- The allegation where the complainant alleges that she was asked to "take on a job which is being carried out by two Creamery Managers" in Listowel is, according to the respondent, farcical. The respondent states that it is unclear as to what exactly the complainant is referring to her but says that in November, 2002 it did offer her a comparable clerical position to the one she was currently doing at a meeting with her Union. According to the respondent there exists different operational and clerical roles in the organisation. Management have to perform some clerical tasks in the execution of the totality of their roles. The respondent says that situations are dynamic and where the organisation feels that there is a danger of management getting tied down with excessive clerical/administrative work the organisation will look at a different level of resources that may be required to progress. In the situation to which the complainant refers the respondent had acquired Golden Vale and it was decided to employ clerical support to ensure that management personnel would not be distracted from their primary tasks and that accountants would have a clerical person to systematically collect and present data to them. The respondent says that all managers continued in their roles and this was seen as an opportunity for the complainant to operate from Listowel rather than transferring to Charleville where her job had been relocated. The respondent perceived this as a "win-win" situation but the complainant opted for a lucrative severance/redundancy package.
4.7 In conclusion the respondent is emphatic that the complainant's claim of alleged discrimination on the basis of gender or age is totally baseless and asks the Equality Officer to uphold its position in this regard. The respondent also asks the Equality Officer to uphold its position in regard to the claim of victimisation.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant in terms of Sections 6(1), 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(g) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act. A decision must also be made on whether or not the respondent subjected the complainant to victimisation in accordance with Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act. In making these decisions in this claim I have taken into account all of the information, both written and oral, made to me by the parties.
5.2 It should be noted that much of the complainant's submission in this claim, and consequently much of the respondent's submission, relates to remuneration. Section 8(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 provides that
".... an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee ....
(a) the same terms of employment (other than remuneration and pension rights)
.....as the employer offers or affords to another person .... where the circumstances in which both such persons .... are or would be employed are not materially different".
It is clearly the intention of the 1998 Act that allegations of discriminatory treatment in relation to conditions of employment does not include remuneration. Therefore for the purposes of this investigation I am ignoring references to remuneration made by the parties to this claim. I note that the complainant referred a separate equal pay claim and this claim has been investigated and a Decision2 issued.
5.3 It is the complainant's contention that despite taking on additional responsibilities on a regular basis her post was not regraded. The complainant alleges that she was not promoted to a higher level in the respondent organisation despite taking on higher level work and accumulating industry experience, knowledge and skills. The complainant states that she took over Transport Administration from an accountant and a trainee accountant in 1988 yet her position was not regraded to reflect this increased level of responsibility.
5.4 The provisions of Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 state:
"a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence or, as the case may require, the most recent occurrence of the act of discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates".
Under this section of the 1998 Act the complainant must have been subjected to an act of discriminatory treatment in the six months period prior to the referral of her claim. In this case the complainant referred her claim on 5th December, 2002. The discriminatory act would have had to take place during the period from 6th June, 2002 to 5th December, 2002 before the claim can be deemed valid. At the hearing of this claim the complainant contended that the Head of Milk Quota Administration had had his post regraded/reclassified and the Secretary/Receptionist also had her post regraded. The complainant stated that she did not know when these persons had their posts regraded but she alleges that she was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of gender and age in relation to the above persons respectively.
5.5 The respondent stated that the Head of Milk Quota Administration held this job title since 1993 and the Secretary/Receptionist was given the job title of Executive Secretary in August, 2001 when she was given a pay increase. I note that the Secretary/Receptionist was employed by the respondent following a competition for which the complainant did not apply. The change of job title to Executive Secretary was made by the General Manager orally but was not formalised in writing. The pay increase given to the Secretary/Receptionist reflected her performance in the job. I note that these alleged regrading/reclassfications of posts did not occur in the six month period prior to the referral of the complaint by the complainant. At the hearing of this claim the complainant confirmed that no other staff members had improved their job situation or had, to her knowledge, been treated differently or more favourably to her by the respondent organisation in the six months prior to the referral of her complaint. I find, therefore, that there is not a valid complaint of discriminatory treatment before me for investigation.
5.6 In her submission the complainant alleged that she, like her colleagues, had not been given a performance appraisal. However the respondent at the hearing indicated that all staff had performance appraisals and that the complainant's superior officer had undertaken a performance appraisal with her as he had with her colleagues.
According to the respondent the performance appraisal was informal in nature. The complainant again stated that she did not have a performance appraisal and stated that what the respondent terms performance appraisal was in fact a pay review discussion. I am satisfied that the complainant was treated in the similar manner to her colleagues and that in relation to performance appraisals she was not discriminated against by the respondent.
5.7 In her submission the complainant alleged that it is recognised that the Dairy and Agricultural Industry has had a gender bias against females stemming from traditional views of the value of women's contribution to farming. The respondent has denied this and stated that many of its positions were professional and filled by persons (male or female) who held the relevant professional qualifications. Furthermore the respondent operates a Graduate Recruitment Program where certain posts are only filled by graduates. I note that the above statement by the complainant has not been supported by any evidence, statistical or otherwise.
5.8 The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to victimisation by the respondent. At the hearing of this claim the complainant stated her claim of victimisation did not fall within the definition of victimisation in the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and she did not wish to make any arguments on this allegation. Asked if she wished to withdraw the allegation she stated that she did not wish to withdraw it. The allegation of victimisation relates to her attempts to stand up for herself by requesting salary increases, by joining a Union when no-one else was a member and by taking an action many years previous to the Labour Court. I am satisfied that the complainant's allegation of victimisation does not fall within the definition of victimisation under Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act and is, therefore, not validly before me for investigation.
6. DECISION
6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that Ms. Noreen Quilter has not referred a valid claim of discriminatory treatment or victimisation under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations for investigation.
____________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
9th October, 2003
2Equality Officer Decision - DEC-E2003/042