HAZRA (REPRESENTED BY THE EQUALITY AUTHORITY) AND WATERFORD REGIONAL HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY NOLAN, FARRELL AND GOFF - SOLICITORS)
1. DISPUTE
This dispute involves a claim by Dr. Hazra that he was (i) discriminated against and (ii) harassed, on grounds of race, within the meaning of section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of sections 6, 8 and 32 of that Act by Waterford Regional Hospital in the manner in which it behaved towards him from March, 2000 until his employment terminated in June, 2001.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant is a British citizen of Indian ethnicity. He was employed by the respondent in a number of capacities (locum and full-time) from 1996. On 1 July, 1999 he commenced working in the hospital's Microbiology Department as a Registrar under the supervision of Dr. Moloney, Consultant Microbiologist. He alleges that Dr. Moloney treated him differently than his Irish colleagues. In particular, she chastised him unnecessarily and spoke to him in a demeaning fashion, she assigned him a heavy workload, some of which was not appropriate for him to perform and she made comments which he believed to have racist connotations. The complainant further alleges that the respondent failed to initiate any proper/adequate investigation of his complaint when he brought his concerns to its attention. Finally, the complainant alleges that the respondent accused him of retaining social security cheques during a period when he was receiving payment of his salary from the hospital and that such a course would not have been pursued by the respondent if an Irish doctor was in a similar situation. The respondent denies all of the complainant's allegations.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations on 15 January, 2001. In accordance with her powers under the Act the Director delegated the complaint to Mr. Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, for investigation and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under the Act. Written submissions were received from both parties. For a number of reasons, including a change of representation on behalf of the complainant, a hearing of the complaint was not possible until 31 July, 2002. A number of issues emerged at the hearing which required clarification and gave rise to further submissions and correspondence from the parties subsequent to the hearing. Final confirmation that the parties were satisfied that the Equality Officer was in possession of all necessary material from their perspective was received on 12 June, 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT'S CASE
3.1 The complainant, who is a British citizen of Indian ethnicity, commenced working in the hospital's Microbiology Department as a Registrar on 1 July, 1999. He secured the post following a competitive interview and he was to work under the direct supervision of Dr. Moloney. He worked in a number of locations in the laboratory for the first few months and he considered his working relationship with Dr. Moloney to be a normal one. The complainant states that Dr. Moloney arranged for him to visit Beaumont Hospital in March, 2000 as part of a training process. He adds that it was on his return from this visit that he first noticed a change in her attitude towards him. He alleges that she quizzed him about the questions he had asked and berated him for not asking particular questions, although she had not briefed him that he should ask those questions.
3.2 The complainant alleges that during his time as Registrar (July, 1999 - September, 2000) Dr. Moloney constantly berated him for "things which should have been done" when on many occasions he was the only doctor working in the Department - Dr. Moloney was frequently absent. He adds that this was contrary to the rules and procedures governing his appointment to the Department, in that he was to have constant supervision. However, he found himself acting in a consultative role, a role he was not qualified to perform. He states that one incident is particularly relevant to his complaint. Dr. Moloney was absent from the Department and left instructions with her secretary for him concerning a certain patient in the hospital. The instructions he received from the secretary were unclear and he contacted Dr. Moloney by telephone seeking clarification and advice on the matter. He contends that she got extremely angry with him and rebuked him for his delay in examining the patient. He asserts that his actions were entirely appropriate in circumstances where a lack of clarity existed in the instructions received.
3.3 The complainant states that at the start of his time in the Microbiology Department, Dr. Moloney told him he was welcome to use medical reference books which were located in her office. He contends that on one occasion she admonished him for removing a book from her office, raising her voice in the process. He did not use the books after that incident. The complainant adds that as a new trainee in Microbiology he was keen to learn and agreed with Dr. Moloney that he would not take his annual leave entitlement for the year 1999, rather he would defer it until April and June, 2000. He contends that when he approached Dr. Moloney nearer April, 2000 about taking his leave she told him "it was a terrible inconvenience" and "she would make sure it did not happen again".
3.4 The complainant states that he was involved in the National Meningitis Surveillance Programme from June, 2000 until he left the Department the following September. As a result of this task his workload increased and he alleges that Dr. Moloney requested him to work until 8pm to complete this work. He contends that when he asked if he was to be paid for these additional hours, Dr. Moloney sneered at him, expressed surprise that he would ask such a question stating that it should be considered as "an academic exercise". The complainant further states that Friday afternoon was allocated as a structured study period for him. On one particular Friday afternoon he was busy and remained in the Department working instead of going to the library. He adds that he needed to speak with Dr. Moloney that afternoon about work related issues and when he went to her office she was extremely rude to him, accused him of wasting her time and told him to "go home". The complainant states that he believes there was a racial connotation to this comment that he had no business being in Ireland and he should leave the country.
3.5 The complainant states that a colleague made derogatory remarks to him, which included crude language, about the hospital's infection control policy, whilst he was talking with another medical colleague. He contends that when he reported this incident to Dr. Moloney she failed to take any action on it. He adds that on 5 September, 2000 Dr. Moloney called him to her office, where she accused him of failing to organise a full range of tests for a patient the previous day - a day on which she had been absent from the Department. The complainant contends that when he pointed out her absence to her she asked him if he "had learning difficulties". When he remonstrated with her for using such language she replied that "he was not a child". Dr. Hazra states that he was severely stressed by these comments and was unable to report for duty the following day. He subsequently attended his GP and was diagnosed as suffering from stress/depression. He did not resume his duties after that day and continued on sick leave until his contract with the respondent expired on 30 June, 2001.
3.6 The complainant states that, in accordance with the South Eastern Health Board's Employee's Sick Scheme, a scheme which was operated by the respondent, he was entitled to receive his full salary, if absent from work due to illness, for a period of six months and he was obliged to refund any social security benefit he received to the respondent. He had signed an Authorisation Form to this effect on 12 October, 2000 which mandated the Department of Social Welfare to pay any such benefits direct to the respondent. He contends that whilst on sick leave the respondent's Personnel Department wrote to him effectively accusing him of retaining a number of cheques from the Department of Social Welfare in respect of sick benefit at a time when he was in receipt of full salary from the respondent. The complainant denies that he ever received any cheques from the Department other than one dated 21 June, 2001 in the amount of £1498.70, which he confirms he retained as he had not received any payment from the hospital since the end of the previous April, despite a number of requests on his part. He contends that the hospital would not have acted in the same manner with an Irish doctor.
3.7 The complainant states that he received a telephone call from an official in the respondent's Personnel Department on 8 September, 2000, a few days after the alleged discussion with Dr. Moloney, enquiring as to why he had not reported for work. He explained that he was upset as a result of Dr. Moloney's behaviour and that he had written a letter of complaint to the Hospital Manager that day. The complainant adds that when no reply was received by him to his original letter, he wrote again to the Hospital Manager on 14 September, 2000. He subsequently met with the Hospital Manager, Mr. Dooley, on 22 September, 2000. The complainant states that as a result of Mr. Dooley's comments in the course of this meeting he formed the view that the matter would not be resolved informally and asked that his complaint be investigated on a formal basis. He subsequently contacted the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) who wrote to the respondent on his behalf on 5 October, 2000 and 13 November, 2000 seeking confirmation that the respondent was initiating an internal investigation of the matter. The respondent replied on 12 December, 2000 stating that the matter could not proceed at that time and was unlikely to proceed before end March, 2001. The complainant subsequently lodged a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to the Equality Tribunal. The complainant adds that his complaint was never investigated by the respondent.
3.8 The complainant submits that Dr. Moloney's conduct towards him constitutes less favourable treatment of him in relation to conditions of employment contrary to section 8 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. He further submits that her behaviour was offensive, unwelcome and humiliating to him and constitutes harassment of him contrary to section 32 of the Act. He contends that this treatment of him was because of his Indian ethnicity and Dr. Moloney did not treat Irish staff in the same manner. The complainant submits that it is not appropriate to look at each of the alleged incidents in isolation but that the impact on him of the totality of the alleged incidents must be considered and a subjective approach taken. In support of this contention he cites the decision of the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal in Driskell -v- Peninsula Business Services Ltd. and Others1 and Qureshi -v- Victoria University of Manchester2. The complainant further submits that the respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. Moloney as a result of section 15 of the Act; that it did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to deal with harassment and it failed to take any action on foot of his formal complaint against Dr. Moloney, which he made in September, 2000.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent rejects the complainant's allegations of discrimination. It states that the first time it became aware of any difficulties between him and Dr. Moloney was when it received his letters of 6 and 14 September, 2000. The Hospital Manager (Mr. Dooley) met with the complainant on 22 September, 2000 to discuss his complaint. The respondent contends that during the course of this meeting Mr. Dooley asked the complainant if he considered Dr. Moloneys' alleged behaviour racially motivated and he replied that it was not. When Mr. Dooley informed the complainant that the matter could be dealt with informally this option was rejected by Dr. Hazra. The respondent states that the matter therefore fell to be addressed under the South Eastern Health Board's Anti-bullying Policy.
4.2 The respondent states it notified the health board and Dr. Moloney on 11 October, 2000 that the complainant wished to have his complaint investigated formally. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Dooley was informed by the Irish Hospital Consultant's Association (IHCA) that the allegations against Dr. Moloney could not be investigated under the health board's
procedures. This situation arose because the procedures contained a clause which stipulated that "where nationally or locally agreed procedures already exist for dealing with allegations of misconduct against particular categories of staff, these procedures should continue to apply". The IHCA was not involved in any consultations with the health board about the application of the procedures and in any event, each consultant's individual contract of employment contained a provision for dealing with complaints against him or her. In addition, the South Eastern Health Board was involved, at that time, in a High Court case concerning a consultant in another hospital who had questioned the correct procedures to be followed when investigating complaints against consultants. The High Court (Ms. Justice Carroll) did not issue her judgement in that case until 27 November, 2001. The respondent submits that in light of the circumstances outlined above, Mr. Dooley was unable to progress the matter at that time and he wrote to the IMO on 12 December, 2000 advising of this.
4.3 The respondent states that Mr. Dooley wrote to the IMO again on 6 March, 2001 advising that a second Consultant was being assigned to the Microbiology Department and requesting a meeting to discuss the prospect of the complainant resuming duty. The respondent wrote to the complainant on 17 April, 2001 requesting his attendance at a medical examination the following week to assess his capacity to resume duty. He did not keep this appointment and the respondent wrote again on 3 May, 2001 requesting him to contact Mr. Dooley with a view to rescheduling this examination. The complainant did not reply.
4.4 The respondent states that in accordance with the Health Board's Sick Pay Scheme the complainant was paid his full salary from 6 September, 2000 until 8 March, 2001 when he was absent due to illness and that he then went on half pay. The complainant's salary ceased on 30 April, 2001 because the respondent had not received payment of the social security cheques received by him from the Department of Social Welfare. It submits that his actions were contrary to the Agreement signed by him and on 4 May, 2001 an official from the respondent's HR Department wrote to him requesting re-imbursement. The respondent asserts that the same process would apply to any employee covered by the Sick Scheme who had failed to pass on any social security cheques received.
4.5 The respondent rejects the complainant's assertion that he was discriminated against or harassed by Dr. Moloney on grounds of race contrary to sections 8 and 32 of the Act. In this regard it relies on the statement of Dr. Moloney which responds to each of the alleged
incidents detailed by the complainant in the previous section of this Decision. The respondent further submits that the complainant refused an informal investigation of his allegations and was informed why the respondent was precluded from progressing the matter formally due to the High Court action. Finally, the respondent submits that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged treatment of him, in respect of any manner in which the respondent dealt with this matter, constitute less favourable treatment of harassment of him contrary to the Act.
5. SUMMARY OF HEARING
5.1 The complainant stated that he did not use the words "race" or "racially motivated" to Mr. Dooley during their meeting on 22 September, 2000. He added that he had not made a comment of that nature to any member of the hospital management, either at that time or
prior to it. He submitted a copy of his notes of the meeting. He confirmed that the notes were not made during, or immediately after the meeting, but two/three days later. He went on to say that the reason he had not raised the matter with Dr. Moloney or anybody in the hospital management was because he feared it would make matters worse for him. The complainant added that he was not aware that the hospital had any policy on harassment/bullying and nobody in the hospital had advised him of the existence of such a policy, the first he had heard of it was when his IMO representative brought it to his attention. The complainant stated that he had not attended the medical appointment scheduled for 25 April, 2000 because it had been arranged unilaterally by the respondent with a doctor appointed by it and he did not consider this appropriate. He had been attending his own GP and considered this sufficient.
5.2 Mr. Dooley, the respondent's HR Manager, stated that Dr. Moloney's contract of employment contained a mechanism for dealing with complainants against hospital consultants. When the complainant advised him that he wished to have the matter investigated formally he notified Dr. Moloney of this request. He also wrote to the South Eastern Health Board on 11 October, 2000 seeking its views on the matter. Mr. Dooley stated the IHCA informed him it would insist that the mechanism in Dr. Moloney's contract of employment was the only way to proceed. This view was attested to at the hearing by Mr. Duffy, Assistant General Secretary of the IHCA. In addition, Mr. Dooley stated that the health board informed him verbally that he should proceed with a formal investigation. Mr. Dooley added that he became aware of the existence of the High Court case involving another consultant and disciplinary proceedings in November, 2000 and consequently he felt unable to process the matter pending the judgement of the Court, which was not given until 27 November, 2001. He added that apart from his letter of 12 December, 2001 to the IMO he did not explain further his reasons and assumed that the IMO official would be aware of the impact of the proceedings on the complainant's case and would have advised him of same. Mr. Dooley added that whilst there were no other cases of alleged harassment against Consultants at that time, he would have dealt with them in exactly the same manner because of the High Court case. He concluded by stating that he had decided not to invoke the mechanism in Dr. Moloney's contract of employment after the High Court judgement had been delivered as the complainant had referred the matter to the Equality Tribunal by that time.
5.3 The respondent stated that the complainant's letters of 6, 14 and 22 September, 2000 make no reference to racial harassment. It adds that the IMO's letters of 5 October, 2000 and 13 November, 2000 do not refer to racial harassment either. Bearing in mind the complainant's ethnic background and the nature of the allegations made by him against Dr. Moloney, particularly the alleged comment "go home", Mr. Dooley has specifically asked the complainant when they met on 22 September, 2000 if he considered that comment or her behaviour in general to be racially motivated. The respondent states that the complainant replied they were not racially motivated and submits what it contends are Mr. Dooley's contemporaneous handwritten notes of the meeting which supports this contention. The complainant rejected this assertion but acknowledged that he did not consider Dr. Dooley's comment to "go home" to be racially motivated at the time but when he reflected on it later that evening, he felt it had racial undertones.
5.4 The respondent accepted that there were occasions when Dr. Moloney was absent from the Microbiology Department and that whilst these were not structured to any great extent, it agreed that it would on average, constitute one day a week, although it contends that this was not the case from June-September, 2001. It added that although absent, Dr. Moloney was always contactable during these periods and there was a clear understanding that the complainant could contact her if necessary. He was not expected to deal with issues where he did not feel professionally competent to do so. This was confirmed by the complainant. Dr. Moloney stated that it was normal practice for Consultants to be absent from Departments for a variety of reasons and whilst accepting she was the complainant's supervisor, she submitted such supervision implies, in an Irish sense, that she oversee the work of the complainant and be available to deal with queries or issues which were outside his competence. It did not envisage her standing at his side at all times, rather it required her to provide an environment in which the complainant could develop his own competencies and she made every effort to fulfil this role. She argued that this was also the Medical Council's understanding of a supervisory role. She added that the complainant was engaged at Registrar level which indicated a level of responsibility and an assumption that he would exercise a degree of clinical autonomy which would not be expected of a Senior House Officer or Intern. Dr. Moloney submitted that her actions to involve him in the Meningitis Programme, to visit Beaumont Hospital and to encourage him undertake additional studies were geared towards providing the complainant with opportunities to develop in the area of microbiology and epidemiology. She added that there was no pressure on him to undertake the work associated with the Meningitis Programme and she considered his involvement to be of a limited duration, although she had never communicated this to him or given him the option to refuse. She concluded by stating that the complainant never raised any issue with her about these matters, or that his workload was excessive, in the course of discussions surrounding the renewal of his contract in June, 2000 and consequently she assumed all was well.
5.5 Dr. Moloney stated that she found it necessary to discuss aspects of the complainant's record keeping and time management with him on a couple of occasions. The complainant accepted that this was the case but added that he was doing his best bearing in mind the excessive workload he was dealing with. Dr. Moloney stated that she was contactable on 4 September, 2000, a point which was confirmed by the complainant. The complainant also accepted that he may have given Dr. Moloney incorrect information about protein level result in respect of a patient and he agreed that they had spoken about this topic previously.
5.6 The respondent furnished the Equality Officer with copies of the complainant's approved application forms for study leave (16-23 May, 2000) and annual leave (2-30 June, 2000) which it submits show that the periods of leave were granted to, and availed of by, the complainant. Dr. Moloney stated that she did not believe she had the right to refuse somebody's annual leave but added that she was of the view that a long and continuous absence from the Department would be detrimental to the complainant's studies and development. She added that she would hold this opinion regardless of the person involved.
5.7 The respondent stated that it had written to the complainant seeking repayment of a number of disability benefit cheques received by him from the Department of Social Welfare during the course of his sick absence. During the course of the hearing Mr. Dooley was unable to shed any light on this assertion other than it was based on information provided by the hospital's payroll section. The respondent made further enquiries with the Department of Social Welfare about these cheques subsequent to the hearing and confirmed that the cheques had indeed been received by the hospital and lodged to its account and had never been directed to the complainant at all. In the circumstances, it withdrew this allegation and apologised for any upset caused. The complainant submitted that the continued insistence of the respondent that the complainant fraudulently retained the cheques and cashed them is evidence of continued racial discrimination on its part. It would have been more careful had it been an Irish doctor involved and drew the Equality Officer's attention to the fact that it took the respondent eighteen months to apologise for the false accusations.
5.8 The complainant submitted that the facts as outlined by him constitute hostile treatment of him which amounts to harassment contrary to section 32 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. He added that the manner in which the respondent handled the matter clearly favoured Dr. Moloney and that its failure to adopt a pro-active approach to the complaint and to anti-discrimination policies in general could not permit it to rely on the defence provided under sections 15 and 32 of the Act. The respondent argued that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and submitted that although EU Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or national origin3 was not required to be transposed into Irish law until sometime in the future, it should be of persuasive authority to the Equality Officer.
6. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
6.1 The issues for decision by me is whether or not Waterford Regional Hospital (i) discriminated against Dr. Hazra and (ii) harassed him on grounds of race, within the meaning of section 6 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of sections 6(1), 8(1) and 32 of that Act in the manner in which it treated him from March, 2000 until he ceased employment with it in June, 2001. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written and oral submissions made by both parties.
6.2 Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 provides:
"For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as "the discriminatory grounds"), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.".
Section 6(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, the following:
"(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as "the ground of race"),".
Section 8(1) of the Act provides:
"In relation to --
(a) access to employment,
(b) conditions of employment, ........
an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee ........"
Section 15 of the Act provides, inter alia,
"(1) Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person's employer, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval.".
Section 32 of the Act provides,
"(1) If, at a place where C is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace"), or otherwise in the course of C's employment, another individual ("E") harasses C by reference to the relevant characteristic of C and --
(a) C and E are both employed at that place or by the same employer, .......
then, for the purposes of this Act, the harassment constitutes discrimination by C's employer, in relation to C's conditions of employment, on whichever discriminatory ground is relevant to persons having the same relevant characteristic as C.
(5) For the purposes of this Act, any act or conduct of E (including, without prejudice to the generality, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material) constitutes harassment of C by E if the action or other conduct is unwelcome to C and could reasonably be regarded, in relation to the relevant characteristic of C, as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to C.".
6.3 It is commonplace in this jurisdiction that the complainant must, in the first instance, establish facts from which may be presumed that they have suffered less favourable treatment than another person is, has or would be treated. It is only when such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination. This approach has its origins in issues of gender discrimination and is now part of Irish law with the coming into force of the European Communities (Burden of Proof in Gender Discrimination Cases) Regulations, 20014. However, Equality Officers have applied this approach in cases on non-gender discrimination and it has also been applied by the Labour Court in Revenue Commissioners v O'Mahony & Othrs5 and it is consistent with the approach contained in the EU Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or national origin6. Prima facie evidence has been described as "evidence which in the absence of any credible contradictory evidence by the employer would lead any reasonable person to conclude that discrimination had probably occurred"7. That been said, in my opinion section 32 of the Act, which deals with harassment, does not require the complainant to show that he was treated less favourably than a Registrar of a different ethnic origin, rather he has to demonstrate that the treatment complained of was unwelcome to him and could reasonably be regarded as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to him by reference to his ethnicity.
6.4 In my view the complainant's case falls into two distinct parts. Firstly, his allegations of harassment and less favorable treatment against his immediate superior, Dr. Moloney and secondly, his allegations of discriminatory treatment and harassment against officials in the respondent's HR Department as regards their behaviour towards him in respect of investigating his complaint and assertions that he withheld social security benefit contrary to agreed procedures. I propose to deal with each part of the complaint separately.
6.5 The complainant submits that the Equality Officer must not look at each alleged incident of harassment by Dr. Moloney in isolation, rather he must assess the impact of the totality of the incidents on the complainant and a subjective approach taken. It cites two UK Employment Appeals Tribunal cases in support of such an approach. In one of those cases Driskell -v- Peninsula Business Services Ltd. and Others8 the Tribunal was assisted in its decision by a blatant discriminatory comment from a male interviewer to a female interviewee the day before the interview, which was the latest in a line of inappropriate incidents between the parties. There is no such clarity in the instant case. The second case Qureshi -v- Victoria University of Manchester9 is more akin to the instant case. The principles in both cases are similar in that they state that the correct approach to take in cases where that is an alleged chain of discriminatory incidents, that the Tribunal should establish the facts of the various incidents and decide whether it can legitimately infer from all of those facts, in addition to all the other circumstances of the case, whether they acts complained of were based on racial factors. This approach has been upheld by the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom. I would concur with this approach and I have adopted such an approach in this case. In my view it is the role of the Equality Tribunal to establish all of the facts surrounding the allegations and to decide, on balance, whether, individually or collectively, they constitute harassment or discriminatory treatment contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998 or that such inferences can be drawn from those findings.
6.6 I note the complainant commenced work in the Microbiology Laboratory in June, 1999 and that he had a normal working relationship with Dr. Moloney at that time. The first occasion he noticed a difference in her attitude towards him was when in returned from a visit to Beaumont Hospital around March, 2001. Other than the incident concerning the hospital infection control policy, there is no dispute between the parties that the list of alleged incidents between Dr. Moloney and the complainant took place. It is the content and context of these interactions which is in dispute. I have no doubt that Dr. Hazra viewed these discussions as unwelcome and traumatic. However, that does not mean that they constitute less favourable treatment, or harassment, of him contrary to the Act.
6.7 Commencing with the discussion between the complainant and Dr. Moloney on his return from Beaumont Hospital, I am satisfied that Dr. Moloney arranged the visit in an effort to provide him with an opportunity to mingle with his peers and avail of learning opportunities. I believe that it would be normal staff management practice to discuss such a visit with a staff member when he returned to the Department and I am prepared to accept, on balance, that the discussion between them was in that context. The complainant has adduced no evidence to demonstrate that he was treated less favourably than another person would have been in the circumstances. In addition, whilst the comments may have been unwelcome to him, I cannot conclude that they constitute harassment of him on grounds of race contrary to the Act. However, notwithstanding my acceptance of Dr. Moloney's reasons for her actions, I feel it would have been beneficial to all concerned and may have set a different tone to the subsequent working relationship with the complainant had she explained fully and clearly the reasons for the visit early on.
6.8 The complainant contends that his workload was excessive and that he was left for considerable periods unsupervised in the Department. I note the complainant had worked in the hospital from 1996 as both a Locum and Senior House Officer in a number of departments. I believe this experience must have equipped him with the knowledge that hospital departments are busy, stressful environments - a fact that has been the subject of considerable dialogue in the recent past in the industrial relations arena. In my view, it should have been no surprise to him that the Microbiology Department of a large regional hospital with a catchment area of around 400,000 people, would be no different. It is accepted by Dr. Moloney that her duties as a Consultant required her absence from the Microbiology Department on a fairly frequent basis, on average totaling one day a week. She states however, that during these absences the complainant could contact her to discuss any issue which he did not feel competent to deal with - a point which was accepted by Dr. Hazra. I note that prolonged absences by Dr. Moloney from the Department were covered by a locum Consultant in accordance with normal practice. The complainant states that he had expected to be personally supervised by Dr. Moloney at all times. Dr. Moloney states that it is normal for Consultants to be absent from the Department for a variety of reasons and although she was the complainant's supervisor, she submitted that such supervision implies, in an Irish sense, that she oversee the work of the complainant and be available to deal with queries or issues which were outside his competence. She added that it did not envisage her standing at his side at all times rather it required her to provide an environment in which the complainant could develop his own competencies and she made every effort to fulfil this role and argued that this was also the Medical Council's understanding of a supervisory role. She added that the complainant was engaged at Registrar level which indicated a level of responsibility and a assumption that he would exercise a degree of clinical autonomy which would not be expected of a Senior House Officer or Intern. I believe that Dr. Moloney's comments reflect the reality of working life in a large modern hospital whilst the complainant's present a rather idealistic image. I am of the opinion that whilst such activity undoubtedly placed a heavy burden on the complainant, it was not a consequence of his ethnic origin - the same burden would have been placed on a Registrar of a different nationality or ethnicity. It follows therefore that I do not consider this incident to constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment of the complainant contrary to the Act.
6.9 Before leaving this issue I note the complainant cites one issue which he was particularly concerned about - the additional work associated with the Meningitis Surveillance Programme. The complainant states that he considered this as additional work whereas Dr. Moloney viewed it as an opportunity to learn and develop which would have future benefit to the complainant. I note that Dr. Moloney had been to the forefront in securing the Registrar post in the Microbiology Department and that Dr. Hazra was the first appointee to the post. I am satisfied that Dr. Hazra's professed eagerness to learn as matched by Dr. Moloney's enthusiasm to afford him ample opportunity to attain his goal, although this enthusiasm may have been somewhat excessive and therefore perceived by the complainant in a negative manner. I note Dr. Moloney stated in the course of the hearing that she had viewed the complainant's involvement with the Programme as being of limited duration and that there was no compulsion on him to perform the task. However, she accepted that she had not informed the complainant of this or of giving him the option to refuse. I am satisfied on balance however, that Dr. Moloney's actions, although over zealous, do not constitute less favourable treatment of the complainant and that she would have taken the same approach with a different Registrar. Similarly, I must conclude that her actions do not constitute harassment of the complainant in breach of the section 32 of the Act as they did not result from his ethnicity.
6.10 The complainant states that Dr. Moloney rebuked him for not having examined a patient on a particular occasion when she was absent from the hospital. Dr. Moloney's response is essentially that the patient in question was suffering from a potentially life threatening viral illness and had been examined by the complainant the previous Friday (the incident occurred on Monday) and from his clinical experience he should have known the patient required further examination. Instead, the complainant relied on a nurse's report on the patient - a point which was accepted by the complainant. Dr. Moloney adds that when the complainant contacted her to discuss the patient she informed him of the foregoing and asked him to examine the patient and contact her later. She denies that her tone was angry. I note from Dr. Moloney's evidence at the hearing that antibiotic medication was central to the care of this patient and that Microbiology reports would have been the main mover in the determination of this care. It seems to me to be an imperative therefore, that any decision concerning patient treatment in such cases must be based on accurate and comprehensive information and any doubt on Dr. Moloney's part that this was not the case would have to be addressed. It seems reasonable to me that she would request the complainant to conduct the examination in question. I am satisfied that Dr. Moloney, in the her capacity as having ultimate responsibility for the Microbiology prognosis, would have made such a request regardless of the identity or characteristics of the Registrar involved. I find that her actions in this regard do not constitute less favourable treatment of Dr. Hazra. I also find that they do not constitute harassment of him as they were not based on factors related to his ethnicity and consequently, they do not constitute harassment contrary to the Act.
6.11 There is agreement between the complainant and Dr. Moloney that an arrangement existed concerning the use of textbooks by Dr. Hazra. The complainant states that on one occasion when he took a book from her office she asked him "where are you taking that book" and that her tone was rough. Dr. Moloney accepts that she asked the complainant to return the book but denies that her manner was rough. She adds that these reference books were her personal property and were quite expensive. Consequently, she was anxious to ensure that they were not removed from her office without her consent and she had set out these conditions to the complainant at the start. The complainant does not recall this conversation. I note that Dr. Moloney arranged for long-term loan of some textbooks for the complainant and arranged for other to be furnished to him free of charge. The complainant acknowledged that he had received some books but was not aware of their source. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to reconcile the actions of Dr. Moloney in ensuring the complainant had easy and inexpensive access to textbooks with the allegation that she mistreated the complainant as outlined above. It is entirely plausible that Dr. Moloney's tone could have been brusque with the complainant during the incident in question and I believe that such a tone might not be considered unreasonable bearing in mind the value of the books and the need for her to have quick access to them for research or reference. I am satisfied, on balance, that Dr. Moloney's actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that she did not treat the complainant less favourably than she would have treated a person of a different race or ethnicity. In addition, it is clear that the complainant found these comments unwelcome, humiliating and intimidating. However, I cannot accept that they were motivated by or related to his ethnicity.
6.12 The complainant alleges that he had difficulty getting approval for his annual leave and study leave in 2001 and contends Dr. Moloney told him that "it was an inconvenience" and "she would make sure its not going to happen again". Dr. Moloney rejects these allegations but accepts that she held the view that such a long, continuous absence could be detrimental to the complainant's training and studies. I am satisfied, on balance, that she communicated these sentiments to the complainant at the time she approved the annual leave, 31 March, 2001. I have examined the material furnished by the respondent and I am satisfied that the complainant was on annual leave from 2 June-30 June, 2001. He was also granted study leave from 16 May-23 May, 2001. During the hearing Dr. Moloney stated that she would have held the views she did about a prolonged absence by somebody in training, regardless of the individual involved and as the complainant was the first incumbent of the post she was acutely aware of the need for continuity of work and training. In support of this view she submitted a copy of an extract from section 10 of the Guidelines of the Irish Committee on Higher Medical Training which sets out the circumstances during training which permits absences and in particular, the treatment of those absences in calculating time spent in training. I am satisfied, on balance, that Dr. Moloney's actions were premised on this opinion and were therefore not discriminatory, nor do they constitute harassment, contrary to the Act.
6.13 The complainant alleges that he was frequently unable to attend his agreed protected study periods due to the pressure of work and recalls one particular Friday afternoon when he was unable to attend the library. He contends that when he attempted to speak with Dr. Moloney she accused him of wasting her time and told him to "go home". He argued that there was a racial connotation to this comment - in that he had no business being in Ireland and that he should leave the country. Dr. Moloney accepts that she told the complainant to go home but that this was because it was approaching 5pm and she felt there would be little benefit to him going to the library at that late hour. I note the complainant stated at the hearing that he did not consider the comment to have racial undertones at that time - he believed it to be an order that he leave work for the day - and it was only later that he formed the opinion that could have other connotations. I note that none of the complainant's letters (6,14 and 22 September, 2001) to Mr. Dooley make any reference to racial comments and whilst I can understand his reservations about broaching such issues direct with Dr. Moloney, I find it odd that he did not mention his suspicions to Mr. Dooley. The complainant contends that the issue of racial behaviour was not mentioned in the course of his meeting with Mr. Dooley and submits his record of what occurred in support of this contention, notes which he prepared 2/3 days later. Mr. Dooley contends he specifically raised that issue with the complainant and that he replied he did not consider the comment to be racially motivated. Mr. Dooley submits a copy of what he states is his contemporaneous notes of the meeting. I am inclined, on balance, to accept Mr. Dooley's version of events as the more credible. Counsel for the complainant rightly argues that section 32 of the Act provides that it is a matter for the recipient of comments to determine whether or not they are unwelcome. or intimidating to C."10. I am of the opinion that the comment in question falls short of that test and that the interpretation placed on it by the complainant at the time it was However, for the comments to constitute harassment they must also fufil the objective test of being reasonably regarded "in relation to the relevant characteristic of C, as offensive, humiliating uttered, an interpretation I am satisfied he continued to hold, at least until after 22 September, 2001, was the correct one to make in the circumstances. It follows therefore that I do not consider the comment to constitute harassment as defined by the Act. Neither do I consider it to amount to less favourable treatment of the complainant on grounds of race.
6.14 The final allegation in respect of Dr. Moloney relates to the incident on 5 September, 2000, the day before the complainant went on extended sick leave. The complainant states that Dr. Moloney had been absent from the Department the previous day and alleges that on her return she accused him of failing to organise a full range of tests for a patient on the day she was away. He also contends that when he pointed out her absence to her she asked him if he "had learning difficulties" and that when he remonstrated with her for using such language she replied that "he was not a child". Dr. Moloney states that although she was not in the hospital on 4 September, 2000 she was contactable - a point accepted by the complainant at the hearing. She adds that the complainant had furnished her with inaccurate information concerning a patient's test results, which she had passed on to another Consultant - a point that the complainant accepted as possible during the hearing. Dr. Moloney states that she had previously discussed the medical issues in question with the complainant in July, 2000 - a point which was also acknowledged by Dr. Hazra at the hearing. Dr. Moloney states that the complainant had been present on a number of occasions when she had requested a full range of tests for patients and she had also provided him with a "checklist" of laboratory investigations for various conditions. The complainant acknowledged these points during the course of the hearing. Dr. Moloney denies that she asked the complainant if he had learning difficulties but accepts that she asked him if he had found clinical medicine difficult, to which she contends he replied "in some respects". She adds that she re-iterated her advice to him to retain notes on the wide range of medical conditions which the Department came across and the relevant antibiotic treatment used and to use these notes for reference as necessary. She states that she told him he was not a child but a qualified doctor with considerable experience of clinical medicine and that this experience should be applied to the study of microbiology.
6.15 It is clear to me that the complainant considered this discussion to be the last in a sequence of incidents between him and Dr. Moloney which he found unacceptable. Nevertheless, I am satisfied Dr. Moloney was not fully aware that the working relationship between them was as bad as the complainant states he believed it to be. However, I am not convinced she did not pick up on the signals, given the level of interaction between them during the period in question and the close proximity of their work, that the relationship between them had, at the very least, become tense and frayed. I am satisfied that the language used by Dr. Moloney during the interaction with the complainant on 5 September, 2000 was intended to rebuke him for a failure to perform his duties the previous day, the consequences of which had reflected Dr. Moloney in a poor light with a fellow consultant, and that the phraseology used was influenced by this factor and the on-going difficulties which she had with the complainant's performance in a number of aspects of his work. I am satisfied, on balance, that her actions and comments were harsh in tone but I cannot accept that were discriminatory in that in similar circumstances I believe she would have reacted the same way regardless of whom the person was. In addition, in light of the foregoing, I must conclude that the actions of Dr. Moloney were not related to the complainant's ethnicity and therefore they do not constitute harassment of him contrary to the Act.
6.16 As I indicated in paragraph 6.5 above, having examined all of the individual incidents I now consider it necessary to assess the overall impact of the alleged treatment of the complainant in order to establish whether or not cumulatively, they could be regarded as discrimination under the Act. As I have stated above, I am satisfied that the working relationship between the parties became strained as time progressed. I also accept the complainant's comments that the entire episode was traumatic for him and that he was genuinely afraid to confront Dr. Moloney about his concerns because he felt it would make matters worse for him. However, I find it difficult to understand why an educated individual such as the complainant waited in excess of six months to raise the matter with the hospital's Head of Human Resources because of such fears, particularly as he contends matters got progressively worse for him as time elapsed, notwithstanding his assertion that he did not know how to pursue the matter, an issue I shall return to later in my Decision. In addition, I note that there were difficulties surrounding the complainant's time management and record keeping skills which had necessitated discussion between the parties on a number of occasions - a point which was accepted by the complainant during the hearing. Whilst Dr. Moloney's management and communication skills, in my view, fall short of ideal as regards how she handled matters, I cannot find any evidence to support the complainant's assertion that he was harassed by her and/or treated less favourably by her on grounds of his race, contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In fact I note that complainant's comment in the course of the hearing that until a few days after the "go home" incident (see paragraph 6.12 above) Dr. Moloney had never given him the impression that her behaviour towards him was racially motivated. No clear discriminatory incident which might raise an inference in respect of the other alleged incidents has been established, which is what happened in the Driskell case referred to at paragraph 3.8 above. Having regard to the totality of the alleged incidents and the other circumstances of the case, I cannot hold that they constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment of the complainant contrary to the Act.
6.17 The complainant argues, and it is a point with which I would agree, that there is rarely tangible evidence that discrimination or harassment on grounds of race occurred. An Equality Officer must therefore look to other methods to ensure that such behaviour did not occur. An approach which has emerged in UK as regards allegations of discrimination on grounds of race is that the outcome of the complaint depends on what inferences can be drawn from the facts established by the Tribunal. I have averted to these issues at paragraph 6.5 above. In the preceding paragraphs I have set out my findings as to the primary facts of the case. In each instance, I have found that the respondent has offered an adequate and satisfactory explanation for the treatment complained of. Accordingly, I cannot infer that the alleged treatment constitutes discrimination or harassment of the complainant contrary to the Act. I find therefore, on balance, that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or harassment in respect of this element of his complaint.
6.18 I shall now turn to the issue concerning the accusation by the respondent that the complainant deliberately retained a number of social welfare disability cheques during his absence on sick leave, contrary to the Sick Leave Scheme to which he had agreed. I note from the material submitted by the respondent that an official in its Human Resources Department wrote to the complainant on 4 May, 2001, almost seven months after the sick absence commenced, seeking repayment of the cheques. This action was preceded by a couple of unsuccessful attempts by the respondent to arrange a medical examination of the complainant by its Regional Occupational Health Physician to determine his capacity to resume duties - a course which was in accordance with the South Eastern Health Board's Employees' Sick Scheme, the scheme which was operated by the respondent and which applied to the complainant. The complainant accepted that he had received one cheque in the amount of £1498.70 which was dated 31 June, 2001 and that he had kept this cheque because the respondent had ceased payment of his salary on 30 April, 2001. At the hearing Mr. Dooley stated the respondent's assertion that the complainant had retained other cheques which he had received from the Department of Social Welfare was based on information furnished to him by the hospital's Payroll Department and he was unable to clarify matters. Subsequent to the hearing the respondent notified the Equality Officer that following an examination of the matter it was withdrawing this allegation as the cheques had not been received by the complainant as previously contended, but instead had been received by the hospital and lodged to its bank account. The respondent apologised for any inconvenience or upset caused. The complainant submitted that the continued insistence of the respondent that he had fraudulently retained the cheques and cashed them supported his contention of continued racial discrimination on its part as it would not have treated an Irish doctor in similar fashion.
6.19 I note that the letter from the respondent on 4 May, 2001 seeking re-imbursement of the social welfare benefit was signed by Official A. I also note that in the course of the hearing the complainant stated that most of his dealings with the HR Department had been with this particular official and that he had found her polite and helpful. The information on which this official had acted and which prompted her to write to the complainant was furnished by the Payroll Department and was inaccurate. However, I am of the view that Official A was not aware of this at that time and acted in good faith. I further note that the cheques in question had been lodged to the respondent's bank account in early January, 2001 and I am satisfied on balance, that the error which occurred in preparing this information was a genuine one, not related to the complainant's race. However, I must state that I am astonished that the respondent would commit such allegations to paper in the course of an investigation by an Equality Officer without being 100% sure of their correctness. To continue to hold such a view for some eighteen months is even more astonishing. I therefore feel compelled to state that I do not consider the manner in which the respondent retracted such serious allegations to be adequate or satisfactory and whilst I am satisfied that the actions of the respondent in this regard do not constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment, I would suggest that the respondent communicate its withdrawal of these matters in clear, unambiguous language direct to the complainant at the earliest opportunity, apologizing for the offence caused.
6.20 I shall now deal with the complainant's allegations that the respondent failed to deal adequately with his complaint. The complainant first notified the respondent of his concerns by way of letter to Mr. Dooley on 6 September, 2000. They subsequently met on 22 September, 2000 to discuss the contents of that letter. In the interim Mr. Dooley copied the complainant's letter to Dr. Moloney and sought her agreement to have the matter dealt with informally. He put this proposition to the complainant in the course of the meeting on 22 September and it was rejected - the complainant instead asked for the matter to be
investigated formally. The respondent states that in those circumstances it was necessary or it to use the procedures under the South Eastern Health Board's Anti-Bullying Policy. The respondent states that shortly afterwards, Mr. Dooley was informed by the Irish Hospital Consultant's Association (IHCA), of which Dr. Moloney was a member, that the allegations against Dr. Moloney could not be investigated under the health board's procedures. This situation arose because those procedures contained a clause which stipulated that "where nationally or locally agreed procedures already exist for dealing with allegations of misconduct against particular categories of staff, these procedures should continue to apply".
The IHCA had not been involved in any consultations with the health board about the application of the procedures to its members and in any event, each consultant's individual contract of employment contained a provision for dealing with complaints against him or her. The respondent adds that at that time the South Eastern Health Board was involved in a High Court case concerning a consultant in another hospital who had questioned the correct procedures to be followed when investigating complaints against consultants. It argues that it was therefore precluded from progressing a formal investigation of Dr. Hazra's complaint pending the judgement of the High Court, which was not delivered until 27 November, 2001 and that it wrote to the IMO on 12 December, 2000 advising of this.
6.21 I note Mr. Dooley's comment at the hearing that he had formed an initial opinion on the merits of Dr. Hazra's complaint after the meeting of 22 September, 2000 and had decided, in accordance with the provisions of Dr. Moloney's contract of employment, that the complaint was without foundation and it was not necessary therefore to refer the matter to the CEO of the hospital. In making that judgement I believe Mr. Dooley applied part of the very process which the respondent contends it was precluded from operating because of High Court proceedings. I further note that he confirms he did not inform either party of his decision in this regard. Rather, he waited until 12 December, 2000 to write to the IMO in terms which are seriously lacking in clarity. Mr. Dooley also stated in the course of the
hearing that he took the decision not to invoke the procedure in Dr. Moloney's contract of employment after he became aware of the existence of the High Court proceedings in November, 2000. I find it difficult to reconcile this comment with those above and I am inclined, on balance, to the view that Mr. Dooley took his decision shortly after the meeting with the complainant and that circumstances combined to permit him to put the matter "on hold" when the existence of the High Court proceedings were brought to his attention in November. His actions therefore, denied the complainant any formal avenue to redress other than the legal route. His decision appears to have been taken following minimal discussion with the Health Board Management and without seeking legal advice, which one might expect him to have done in the circumstances. Another factor which appears to have influenced his decision was the comments of Dr. Moloney's staff association that the
procedure contained in her contract of employment was the only avenue he could follow. Having taken this route he neglected to communicate the outcome of his deliberations to the complainant or his representative until the letter of 12 December, 2000, which as I stated above was very unclear. I note Mr. Dooley stated in the course of the hearing that apart from this letter the respondent did not explain the impact of, or reasons for, its decision to the complainant, adding that it assumed the IMO representative would be aware of the existence of the High Court proceedings. I consider the respondent's approach on this issue to be extremely unsatisfactory and inadequate. It was faced with serious allegations of inappropriate conduct by a consultant in the hospital and had acted swiftly in informing Dr. Moloney of these allegations. Yet almost ten weeks elapsed from the time the complainant met with Mr. Dooley to his correspondence with the IMO. In the interim the respondent had made decisions which affected the matter and it did not communicate these to the complainant. I would like to say, in light of the foregoing, that had the complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent's actions would, in my opinion, fall well short of a satisfactory defence under the Act. The fact that the High Court judgement subsequently found that the mechanism in Dr. Moloney's contract of employment was the correct one to deal with allegations of inappropriate behaviour etc., does not detract from the inadequacy of the respondent's actions in this case and might be considered fortuitous in the circumstances.
6.22 Before leaving this particular issue I would like to alert employers that they should be careful as regards how they respond to complaints made against staff members, regardless of their status within the organisation. In the instant case I am satisfied that the respondent was not on notice that the complainant's case was on the grounds of race until mid/late January, 2001 when it received official ODEI documents/forms from either the complainant or the Equality Officer. This view is supported by the complainant's evidence in the course of the hearing that he did not inform anybody in the hospital Management that Dr. Moloney's treatment of him was a result of his ethnicity. Had it been on notice to any extent that the complainant's race might be a factor, its serious lack of response may be viewed as an element for consideration in determining whether it acted reasonably in accordance with section 32(6) of the Act. At the very least I would suggest where existing formal procedures cannot be utilised, for whatever reason, employers should communicate this to the employee concerned and if appropriate, explore alternative options to resolve the matter.
6.23 The respondent states that during the complainant's absence on sick leave it assigned a second consultant Microbiologist to the Microbiology Laboratory. Mr. Dooley stated at the hearing that this situation was confirmed to the IMO by way of letter dated 6 March, 2001. This letter proposes a meeting to discuss the prospects of the complainant resuming duty. I note that this meeting never took place, most likely because the complainant was in the process of ceasing the arrangement with the IMO that it would represent him. I also note Mr. Dooley's comment that the prospect of re-assigning the complainant to work under the supervision of the second consultant Microbiologist was never really discussed with the complainant because of the doubt over his capacity to resume duty. The complainant was absent from duty because of stress which, he contends, emanated from his working relationship with Dr. Moloney. Mr. Dooley was aware of this. It appears extraordinary therefore, that the respondent failed to pursue the opportunity in early March, 2001 to discuss the prospect that the complainant could return to the Microbiology Department under the supervision of another Consultant. I am of the view that such a proposition had been discussed between Mr. Dooley, Dr. Moloney and the second consultant from the tone and content of M. Dooley's letter of 6 March, 2001 that he had "had discussions with both Consultant Microbiologists with a view to facilitating a resumption to work of Dr. Hazra". Again, had the respondent been clear about it position, or possible position at that time, the complainant may not have felt it necessary to terminate his employment with it later that year.
6.24 The complainant states that he was unaware of the existence of policies and procedures in the hospital concerning harassment and/or bullying until his IMO representative advised him of this. In response the respondent states that the hospital has had an Anti-Bullying Policy since August, 2000, that it was distributed to Heads of Department for notification to existing staff and it is furnished to all new staff at induction training. I have also examined the respondent's Employee Handbook and note that it contains a rather basic paragraph on equal opportunities. When faced with allegations of discrimination or harassment under the Employment Equality Act, 1998, employers can avail of the defence that it took reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring in the first instance, or insofar as harassment has occurred, to reverse the effects of same. The application of such a defence is examined in the context of may elements, one of which is a pro-active approach to the operation of anti-discrimination policies. I would suggest that the respondent review its current practices in this regard to assess whether or not it would comply.
6.25 Whilst I consider the manner in which the hospital Management handled the entire situation to be extremely inadequate and unsatisfactory, I cannot conclude that its shortcomings were connected with the complainant's ethnicity. My comments at paragraph 6.16 above are also relevant to this element of the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and harassment in respect of this element of his complaint..
7. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
7.1 I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against him, or harassed him on grounds of race contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
Vivian Jackson
Equality Officer
7 October, 2003
1 IRLR 151
2 EAT 484/98
3 Council Directive 2000/43/EC
4 S.I. 337 of 2001
5 EDA 033
6 Council Directive 2000/43/EC
7 Gibney v Dublin Corporation
8 IRLR 151
9 EAT 484/98
10 Section 32(5) Employment Equality Act, 1998