FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 77, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1998 PARTIES : SPRING GROVE LAUNDRY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Application for redress under Section 77(2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998
BACKGROUND:
2. The Labour Court investigated the above matter on the 16th December, 2003. The Court's determination is as follows:
DETERMINATION:
Background:
The complainant was employed by Spring Grove Laundry (the respondent) in his capacity as a driver on 2nd May 2003. In August 2003, while the complainant was still on probation, the respondent terminated his employment. The complainant contends that the decision was based on his sexual orientation and he brought a complaint pursuant to Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 claiming discrimination under the Act.
The Submissions:
The submissions made by the parties can be briefly summarised as follows: -
The Complainant:
The complainant told the Court that when he was interviewed for the post he was asked certain questions in relation to his place of residence (details of which were given to the Court) which he understood to be a reference to his sexual orientation. He further contends that during the course of his assignment he was subjected to certain physical contact, which he also interpreted as relating to his sexual orientation. The complainant also claimed that his manager passed certain comments suggestive of a relationship between him and another male employee.
The complainant told the Court that he was transferred from the route to which he was originally assigned, to one which was more onerous. He submitted that there was no rational explanation for his dismissal other than that it was motivated by sexual orientation.
The Respondents Case:
The respondent told the Court that they had no knowledge of the complainant’s sexual orientation until these proceedings were commenced. They emphatically denied that the complainant’s sexual orientation was a factor in his dismissal. The respondent’s representative told the Court that it is Company policy to monitor the performance of staff during the six months of probation and that a review is usually held after three months. They say that this policy is pointed out to employees during their induction.
In the case of the complainant certain difficulties became apparent early in his employment. On or about the 18th June 2003 a counselling meeting was held with the complainant at which he was advised of performance difficulties and of complaints which had been received from customers. The need for significant improvement was pointed out to him. In August 2003 the respondent reviewed the complainant's continued employment. It was found that the position had not improved since the meeting of June 2003 and it was therefore decided to terminate his employment.
Conclusions of the Court:
The only issue for consideration by the Court in this case is whether there is any discernable connection between the complainant’s sexual orientation and the dismissal. The onus is on the complainant to establish such a connection. The complainant accepts that at no stage, either at interview or during the continuance of his employment did he ever indicate to the respondent or to his fellow employees the nature of his sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Court cannot accept that the reference made in the course of the interview to the complainant’s place of residence could reasonably be interpreted as referring to his sexual orientation. On the evidence adduced the Court is satisfied that the respondent did not know the complainant’s sexual orientation and could not have discriminated against him on that account.
As the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of a connection between his dismissal and his sexual orientation his complaint cannot succeed.
Determination:
The Court is satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against on grounds of his sexual orientation. Accordingly the Court finds that this complaint is not well founded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th January, 2004______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.