Employment Equality Acts
1998-2008
EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION
NO: DEC-E2010-135
PARTIES
Grazulis
(Represented by Richard Grogan and Associates)
- V -
First Bathroom Solutions
(Company dissolved 02/12/2009)
File references: EE/2007/518
Date of issue: 16 July 2010
Keywords
Employment equality Acts 1998-2008 - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment- Race - Condition of employment - Prima facie case
1. Dispute
1.1. This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Bernardas Grazulis (hereafter "the complainant") that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Employment Equality Acts by First Bathroom Solutions Ltd. (hereafter "the respondent") on the grounds of his race. The complainant maintains that the respondent discriminated against him in relation to his conditions of work.
1.2. The complainant referred his claim of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 01 October 2007 under the Employment Equality Acts. This claim was made on the race ground. On 30 November 2009, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated these cases to Tara Coogan- an Equality Officer - for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts on which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 18 June 2010.
2. Case for the complainant
2.1. The complainant, a Lithuanian national, worked with the respondent between February 2007 and June 2007.
2.2. The complainant submitted that he was requested to work overtime but without notice. The complainant was not paid extra for his Saturday hours.
2.3. The complainant received no contract of employment, health and safety documentation or training.
2.4. The complainant received no P45 and was not paid for his last week of employment.
2.5. The complainant had to pay for his own petrol money when traveling from the showroom to customer's houses to do plumbing work.
3. Case for the respondent
The respondent company has been dissolved.
4. Conclusion of the equality officer
4.1. In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of 'sufficient significance' before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. The Labour Court elaborated on the interpretation of section 85A in Melbury v. Valpeters EDA/0917 where it stated that section 85A: "places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule".
4.2. Many of the matters referred to above are matters for the Rights Commissioner. The Equality Tribunal has limited jurisdiction which extends to matters concerning employment where less favourable treatment can be shown in a comparator situation with any of the protected grounds. The complainant was unable to show any comparator for the purposes of his argument. Even if the Tribunal was to accept the complainant's statement about his conditions of work, no evidence has been shown that a person with a different nationality would have been more favourably treated in similar circumstances.
4.3. I note that the complainant, when requested by this Tribunal, was able to indicate that the complainant had indeed paid emergency tax for a period up to September 2007 after his employment with the respondent ended. No compelling argument was made to link this failure to issue the complainant with a timely P45 with the complainant's nationality.
5. Decision
5.1. Having investigated the above complaint, I hereby make the following decision in
accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts:
5.2. I find that the complainant has been unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore this claim fails.
________________
Tara Coogan
Equality Officer
16 July 2010