DEC-E2005-004 Full Case Report

Ms. Patricia Buckley and Ms. Catherine Buckley -v- Maps Catering Limited t/a McDonalds

1. DISPUTE
   
   1. The dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Patricia Buckley and Ms. Catherine Buckley that they were discriminated against on the grounds of gender, marital status and disability in terms of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b) and 6(2)(g) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act when they were not offered a full-time or part-time position in the respondent organisation. The respondent denies the allegations.
   2. Consequently the complainants referred a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations on 1st October, 2003 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 20th May, 2004 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. Following receipt of submissions from both parties a joint hearing of this claim took place on 25th November, 2004.
      
2. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANTS’ SUBMISSION
   
   1. According to the complainants they went in May, 2003 for an interview for employment in the respondent organisation. It is the complainants’ contention that they were discriminated against when they were not offered a job. The complainants state that they were told to return in September, 2003 when there would be a job available for them. The complainants returned to the respondent organisation in September, 2003 and were refused application forms. Rather they were told to come back in two weeks. When they returned in two weeks they were informed that there was no work available in this outlet. The complainants note that there was a notice in the window of this outlet one week later and also in the newspapers seeking staff. It is the complainants’ contention that they were discriminated against by the respondent organisation. According to the complainants they were told by the respondent that they would not get the full working pay.
      
3. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
   
   1. The respondent states that on Wednesday, 21st May, 2003 it’s Athlone branch placed a recruitment advertisement in the local newspaper advertising positions available for full-time and part-time staff and stating that open interviews would be held on Tuesday, 27th May, 200 A recruitment poster was also placed in the store. A total of fifty persons presented for interview on the appointed evening and everyone was interviewed by one of three persons who were interviewing on the day. According to the respondent Ms. Patricia Buckley was interviewed by the Store Manager, Drive Thru while Ms. Catherine Buckley was interviewed by the Store Manager, In Store. After all the interviews the respondent states that the management team reviewed all the applicants and selected seven applicants to fill the vacant positions. The complainants were not selected.
   2. The respondent states that the complainants expressed their disappointment at not getting the jobs on several occasions between May and September, 200 According to the respondent it received new application forms from the complainants dated 29th August, 200 Positions were again advertised in September, 2003 both in the local newspaper and in the Store. The respondent says that the complainants were again offered the opportunity of an interview by the Store Manager, In Store but they declined the offer of an interview and demanded a job. It is the respondent’s submission that at no stage were the complainants promised positions in the respondent organisation.
      
4. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
   
   1. The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainants were discriminated against on the grounds of gender, marital status and disability in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all of the information, both written and oral, made to me by the parties.
   2. At the hearing of this claim the respondent noted that the complainants were seeking positions as Cleaners, as stated by one of the complainants on her application form. However the respondent states that the full-time and part-time positions advertised were for staff to serve behind the counter not for cleaners.
   3. In making a claim of discrimination the onus is on the complainants to make a prima facie case of discrimination. It is only when a prima facie claim has been established that the burden of proof falls to the respondent to submit a defence. The complainants allege that they have been discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of gender, marital status and disability when they were not offered positions in the respondent organisation. In relation to gender I note that there were fifty applicants for seven positions. 26 of those applicants (including the complainants) were female and 21 were male and for 3 applicants it was unclear from their names whether they were male or female. During the course of the interview all applicants had a number of scenarios put to them and they were given a number of options of how to deal with each scenario. According to the respondent there were preferred options for each scenario outlined. On the basis of the interviews and the responses of applicants to the scenarios I note that four females and three males were appointed to the vacant positions. On this basis I am satisfied that the complainants have failed to establish aprima facie claim of discrimination on the gender ground.
   4. The complainants also allege that they were discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of their marital status. The complainants have submitted no evidence to support such a contention. The marital status of applicants was not sought on the application form and is, therefore, unknown. On this basis I find that the complainants have failed to establish aprima facie claim of discrimination on the grounds of marital status.
   5. The complainants have also alleged that they were discriminated against on the grounds of disability. According to the complainants they are slow learners and during the course of their interviews they asked if they would be able to retain their disability book in the event of being offered a position. The respondent denies that the complainants raised any issue with the interviewers in relation to disability or a disability book. It is the respondent’s submission that the interviewers were unaware of the complainants’ disability as alleged by the complainants. I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of disability. There is an onus on the respondent to provide reasonable accommodation in the event of a disability. However the respondent, in this case, cannot be obliged to provide reasonable accommodation where it was unaware of the disability in advance.
   6. In this case I am satisfied that the complainants have not shown that they were equally qualified to the persons appointed or indeed that there was any unfairness in the process.
      
5. DECISION
   
   1. In view of the foregoing I find that Mapas Catering Limited t/a McDonalds did not discriminate against Ms. Patricia Buckley and Ms. Catherine Buckley as alleged in terms of Sections 6 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act.

Gerardine Coyle,
Equality Officer
26th January, 2005