THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2008
Decision DEC - E2011 - 245
PARTIES
Mr Erikas Sungaila, Mr Virgilijus Banys and Mr Saulius Banys
(represented by Richard Grogan & Associates)
and
Corlin Developments Ltd.
File Reference: EE/2008/839/840/841
Date of Issue: 19th December, 2011
Headnotes: Employment Equality Acts, 1998 & 2004, section 6,8, 14 and 77 - Section 6(2)(h), Ground of Race - Section 8(1)(b), Conditions of Employment - Section 8(1)(c), Training - Section 74(2), Victimisation and Victimisatory Dismissal
1. Dispute
1.1. This case concerns complaints by Mr Erikas Sungaila, Mr Virgilijus Banys and Mr Saulius Banys (hereinafter referred to as "the complainants") that they were discriminated against by Corlin Developments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") on the grounds of race contrary to section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts (hereinafter referred to as "the Acts") in relation to (i) conditions of employment and (ii) training and (iii) dismissal (with respect to Mr Virgilijus Banys only) contrary to sections 8(1)(b), 8(1)(c) and 8(6)(c) of the Acts. The complainants Mr Erikas Sungaila and Mr Saulius Banys also submitted that they were victimised by the respondent contrary to Section 74(2) of the Acts (as outlined in par. 2.1 below).
2. Background
2.1. The complainants referred complaints under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 4th December, 2008 alleging that the respondent had discriminated against them on the ground of race. Further complaints were referred on 28th January, 2009 by Mr Sungaila and Mr Saulius Banys that they were victimised by the respondent with respect to their dismissal.
2.2. On the 31st January, 2011, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the cases to me, Gary O'Doherty, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Written submissions were received from both parties. A hearing of the complaint was held on 18th February, 2011 and a further hearing was held on 31st May, 2011. Further documentation was sought from the respondent and final correspondence in this respect was received on 24th November, 2011.
3. Summary of the Complainant's case
3.1. The complainants are Lithuanian Nationals. They submitted that they did not receive any contract of employment or any contract at all. They submitted that they did not receive any health and safety documentation or training. Mr Virgilijus Banys submitted that he has limited English. He submitted that he was dismissed by Mr A, a Manager for the respondent, who told him that "all those who don't know English (would be the) first to go". The other two complainants submitted that they were dismissed without any reason or procedure because they had submitted claims to the Tribunal. Mr Sungaila submitted that he was entitled to a redundancy payment if it was a redundancy but that he received nothing.
Evidence of Mr Virgilijus Banys
3.2. Mr Banys submitted that he was employed by the respondent from 15th August, 2007 until 6th November, 2008 as a general labourer and "firestopper". He said he first met Mr A, a manager with the respondent, soon after starting working with it but said he never received any documents from him. He said he was told by Mr Sungaila what he should do and how he should do it but was never told anything about pay by anybody. He denied ever receiving a contract of employment. He said that he received from Mr Sungaila "some sort of document" with key points which told him what he should do, but at the second hearing of the matter he denied saying this. He also said he never received any health and safety documentation. He said he did not know if anyone else received this documentation or a contract of employment.
3.3. Mr Banys stated that he never received any health and safety training. He denied attending any of the training sessions that the respondent claimed he had attended. He said that he received his Safepass training before he started working for the respondent. He said that he did not know if anyone else working for the respondent received health and safety training.
3.4. Mr Banys said that he was told by Mr A "you can't speak English, we have no more work for you." He said that this was said at "some kind of meeting" and was said in front of everyone at that meeting. He said that this meeting was a general meeting of all staff whose purpose was to discuss the circumstances of the company at which they were told that the company was in difficulty and that workers would be let go. He said that he and another Polish man were "relieved from work" thereafter. He said he never had any experience with the respondent's grievance and disciplinary procedures prior to being dismissed.
3.5. Mr Banys stated that he took holidays while he was working for the respondent for no more than three weeks and that they were granted by Mr A. He agreed with the respondent that he enjoyed his work and was happy in it. He said that he did not work in Ireland again and returned to Lithuania on 1st April, 2009.
Evidence of Mr Erikas Sungaila
3.6. Mr Sungaila said that his job with the respondent was to spray metals and steels and to deal with fire paint and he worked for it from July 2006 until 18th December 2008. He said that he never received a contract of employment and did not think that anyone else received one, nor did he ever meet with Mr A to discuss the terms and conditions of his employment, as alleged. He said that his pay and basic conditions were explained to him by a colleague. He denied that it was his signature on the contract of employment provided by the respondent.
3.7. Mr Sungaila said he did receive health and safety documentation from the respondent but did not think that everyone received it. He said that he did not know if Irish workers were provided with these documents. He said they were given to him by a colleague and that he had to sign them and send them back to Mr A. He said he was provided with a copy of the respondent's Health and Safety Handbook in English and that it was translated for him by another colleague.
3.8. Mr Sungaila said that he did not receive any health and safety training from the respondent. He said that, after one year and in order "to remain with the company" he started signing documents saying he had done "toolbox talks" without receiving the talks. Mr Sungaila said he did receive induction training on a new site. He said he had organised his Safepass himself before he started working for the respondent. He later said that he did receive training in the use of a scissor-lift, though he also stated that this was only following some concerns he had expressed about safety on one of the sites on which he was working. He said he also received induction training on new sites.
3.9. Mr Sungaila said that he was given a pay increase because they "had a strike" and had asked for more money. He said, when asked what criteria were used in determining the differences in pay, that Mr A told him that Mr Virgilijus Banys was not given the same pay as him because he did not have the language. Mr Sungaila said that there was a meeting at which all staff had been told that "jobs were going down" and they must get rid of some people.
3.10. Mr Sungaila said that, while working on a particular site, Mr A came to him and gave him an envelope which he found to contain his wages and P45 along with a letter. He said that Mr A told him that the "big boss" was not happy because he went to his solicitor (about his claim to the Tribunal). He said that nobody else was made redundant at the same time as him. He said he had no direct communication with the respondent about his complainants to the Tribunal except that, a couple of months before he was dismissed, he mentioned he would speak to SIPTU about the matter. He said that no procedures were advised to him with respect to his dismissal and he had no experience with the respondent's grievance and disciplinary procedures prior to the dismissal.
3.11. Mr Sungaila said he did not work in Ireland again and returned to Lithuania on 1st April, 2009. He agreed that he had spoken to Mr A about a reference for his wife and his house.
Evidence of Mr Saulius Banys
3.12. Mr Banys said that he worked with the respondent from 16th January, 2007 until 10th December, 2008 as a firestopper and painter. He said he never received a contract of employment from the respondent and was not aware that anyone else received such a contract. He said he never met with Mr A to discuss this contract and/or his terms and conditions of employment, as alleged. He said that Mr Sungaila explained his pay and hours to him. He denied that it was his signature on the contract of employment provided by the respondent. He said he never received any health and safety documentation. He said that some people received these documents but he did not know if Irish workers received them.
3.13. In terms of training, Mr Banys said that Mr Sungaila explained everything to him, although he also said that he had received induction on every site. He said that there was toolbox training but that nothing was explained to them and they were just asked to sign documents saying they had received the training. He said he completed his Safepass training before he started working for the respondent. He said he did not know if anyone else received health and safety training.
3.14. Mr Banys outlined the history of his complaint and what he called a "strike", when they said they would not work for two hours, but went back to work after that on the promise of an increase in pay. He said that two months later the increase had not arrived so they complained again. Mr Banys said they were told that if they don't work the respondent will find other people who will. He said they got paid for 38.5 hrs per week and later got more hours but that, after "they applied to the Labour Court", their hours were reduced again. He said that he was fired and did not communicate with the bosses in that respect. He said there was a meeting with the boss (Mr A) about a week before his holiday. He said that the boss explained the problems and he explained that if they didn't get more hours they will "split up being friendly" and when he came back from his holidays he was fired and that was it.
3.15. Mr Banys said there was a meeting after which his father (Mr Virgilijus Banys) and a Polish man were fired. He said that people were told at that meeting that they would get to work until the end of the year and that only four people would work at any one time. He said that the company said that four people are enough. He said that some people were told after one week they would get fired and others were told they would be fired either then or later and some finished the job that same day.
3.16. Mr Banys said that he went home for the holidays and when he came back he was already fired. He said that he got his last wages and P45 from "a guy" when he came back. He said that everything was explained in the letter he got with the P45 and he had no more communication with the respondent in that respect. Mr Banys said he did not receive a redundancy payment.
3.17. Mr Banys said that no procedures were explained to him with respect to his dismissal and he had no experience with the respondent's grievance and disciplinary procedures prior to the dismissal.
3.18. Mr Banys said that, when he started, he was happy working for the respondent, but that when he understood his rights, he was not happy. He agreed he had been able to take two weeks unpaid leave that had been facilitated by Mr A and that Mr A had facilitated him in booking cheap flights. However, Mr Banys also described occasions when he stated that he was unhappy with health and safety but that he continued to work because he was afraid of losing his job. He said he did not work in Ireland again and returned to Lithuania on 1st April, 2009.
General Submissions
Dismissal
3.19. In relation to the dismissal, the complainants stated that the facts spoke for themselves. They also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 58 named Complainants -v- Goode Concrete and the case of the Labour Court in the case of Campbell Catering -v- Rasaq . In that respect, they essentially submitted that these cases indicated that in disciplinary procedures, employers had a positive duty to ensure all workers fully understand what is alleged against them, and that special measures may be necessary in the case of non-Irish nationals to ensure that this positive duty is fulfilled, and so applying the same procedural standards to a non-Irish national worker as would be applied to an Irish national could amount to the application of the same rules to different situations and could in itself amount to discrimination. They submitted that this was had occurred in their case.
3.20. The complainants confirmed that they had also made claims in relation to the Redundancy Payments Act, the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Terms of Employment Act and the Minimum Notice Act but that their dismissal had not been addressed in any of these claims.
Pay and Pension
3.21. The complainants submitted that they were individuals who were covered by the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry ("the REA"). They submitted that their rights were not complied with in that respect and that they were not paid the rate at which they were entitled to be paid. They also submitted that they were not joined into the CWPS Pension and Sick Pay Scheme and had lost pension entitlements as a result. They submitted that, in considering these matters the Tribunal should look at a notional comparator and not necessarily a comparator within the respondent firm. They submitted that an Irish national comparator would be aware of their employment law rights as regards pension and sick pay contributions.
Conditions of Employment
3.22. The complainants submitted that under the decision in Goode Concrete , there is an obligation on an employer to provide a Contract of Employment in a language likely to be understood by the Complainant but that the respondent did not provide him with any contract of employment. They submitted that a foreign national who does not receive a contract of employment is in a particularly vulnerable position. They contended that following the decision in Campbell Catering there would be a requirement to take special measures to advise a foreign national of their employment rights. Equally, there is a requirement to furnish a foreign national with a Health and Safety statement.
3.23. The complainants submitted that the Tribunal should draw an inference from the fact that the respondent had only provided signed copies of the contracts of employment at the hearing, particularly given that they disputed their signatures on the contracts provided by it and also in light of the fact that it had not replied to the notice of particulars provided to them, from which they submitted that I should also draw inferences. They provided to the Tribunal a copy of the contract of employment which they said was the contract they should have received but did not. In relation to the health and safety documents, they submitted that an Irish person would clearly understand this document while they did not.
4. Summary of the Respondent's case
4.1. The respondent denied that there was ever any discrimination shown to the complainants on grounds of race or otherwise. Mr A, who was present at the hearing, stated that the respondent had a number of nationalities working for it at the time in question, including Irish, English, Polish, Lithuanian and Romanian. He stated that the breakdown of the respondent's workforce at the time was approximately 50% European and 50% Irish.
4.2. Mr A stated that, when the complainants commenced employment, he held a meeting with them individually at the relevant site office. He stated that they were provided with a copy of the respondent's Health and Safety Handbook at this time. He said that, while it was not provided in a language other than English, he fully explained it to them. He stated that he would have asked if the person in question spoke English and that if they stated they did not, an interpreter would have been provided. He said that, to the best of his recollection, the health and safety office of the respondent was looking to translate the Handbook into Polish and Lithuanian but "put it on the long finger". However, he said that he was happy that all health and safety was covered and that the respondent prided itself on its health and safety record.
4.3. Mr A also denied that the complainants were not provided with health and safety training. He stated that each new contract was begun on site with an induction day by the main contractor and the respondent would then hold its own induction class. He said that they were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) viz. a vest and a hat. He said that Mr Sungaila was sent on a particular course and that the level and amount of training that was provided to employees was dependent on their skill levels. He added that the complainants never made any complaint about health or safety issues at work. He added that a "tool box talk" was given every Monday to the complainants. He also pointed out that the complainants had to obtain a Safe Pass card before commencing work.
4.4. Mr A stated that the complainants' contracts of employment were provided to them at the meeting described at par. 4.2 and submitted that he went through the contracts of employment in detail with the complainants, answering any questions that they had. He stated that, while these were also not available in any language other than English, he would have spoken to the "lads" to find out who spoke English and would have asked them to explain the contract to a person who didn't speak English. He said that the main terms were explained in that context. When asked whether he considered having it translated word-for-word, he said that he would have had "the lads" go through it with them and in all the time "the lads" were there, there was never a problem. Mr A provided to the Tribunal copies of contracts which he stated were signed by the complainants.
4.5. The respondent, through its representative at that time, had submitted prior to the hearing that, from past experience, it found that very often, contracts of employment were "left lying around" sites, in work canteens, vans etc. and that this was particularly true of non-Irish employees. Mr A described what it meant by the contracts being "left lying around" but did not know why the respondent's representative had mentioned that this was particularly true of non-Irish employees.
4.6. The respondent submitted that the complainants were properly paid under the relevant legislation pertaining at the time of their employment. Mr A said that the reason the "lads" were paid differently had nothing to do with race. He said that it was because of their skill level and, in that context, Virgilijus Banys was limited in what he could do. He denied that he ever said his pay was anything to do with his race and described how its experiences as a company in Northern Ireland for thirty years meant all its employees were treated equally in that respect. He said that Mr Sungaila and Mr Saulius Banys became very good at their jobs.
4.7. Mr A denied that any of the complainants were dismissed and said that they all left of their own volition. With respect to Mr Sungaila, Mr A said that he told him he wasn't coming back two weeks before he was due to receive his holiday pay. He said that, in that context, he arranged for Mr Sungaila to be given all the money he was owed as well as his holiday pay for his final two weeks off. With respect to Mr Saulius Banys, Mr A stated that Mr Banys told him he was going home for Christmas and never came back. He said that the next Mr A knew of him was when he made the complaint. With respect to Mr Virgilijus Banys, Mr A stated that he also just left his employment. He said that he took it that Mr Banys had gone home for personal reasons.
4.8. Mr A denied that a meeting ever took place in which employees were told of a downturn and that people would have to be let go. He denied ever saying any of the statements the complainants alleged he made in that context. He said that there was no downturn in work at the time in question nor were there any redundancies at the time in question. The respondent provided documents to the Tribunal illustrating its financial position at the time. Mr A denied that the letter provided by Mr Sungaila that was alleged to be written by the respondent and referred to redundancy was genuine.
4.9. Mr A stated that Mr Saulius Banys' claim that he did not complain about health and safety as he was afraid to lose his job had to be considered in the light that he was not afraid to lose his job when he went to the company about rights and wages. He said that the most important thing is personal safety and if there was a problem, he should have downed tools. Mr A said that he personally had done more than enough with regard to contracts of employment and health and safety documentation and that he did more for the complainants than he would have done for "Irish lads". He said that they obtained references for houses and for work.
4.10. In summary, the respondent stated that the contract of employment and health and safety policy was given to the complainants at the start of their employment and was translated for workers who did not understand English. It stated that confirmation that the workers had carried out their Safepass course was received, site inductions took place and toolbox talks were carried out. It stated that PPE was provided as and when needed and specialist training was given to Mr Sungaila. It stated that references were given to spouses to gain employment and rent houses. It stated that additional holidays were allowed to them. In short, the respondent stated that the complainants were taken into its family and treated fairly and with the same respect as all other employees.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1. Section 85A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him/her. If he/she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the respondent to prove the contrary. 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. Therefore, in deciding on this complaint, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. It is only where it has been established that the burden of proving there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the respondent.
5.2. Section 6(1) of the Acts provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where "a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)....." Section 6(2)(h) of the Acts defines the discriminatory ground of race as follows - "as between any two persons ..... that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins.." It follows therefore that the complainant must be the subject of less favourable treatment in comparison to another person on grounds of nationality i.e. because they were Lithuanian. Section 77(2) of the Acts provides that victimisation occurs where ".... adverse treatment of an employee by his..employer occurs as a reaction to (a) a complaint of discrimination made by an employee to the employer"
5.3. The issues for decision by me in this case, then, are whether or not the respondent discriminated against the complainants on grounds of race, in terms of section 6(2)(h) of the Acts and contrary to section 8 of the Acts in terms of conditions of employment and/or dismissal and/or training. I must also consider whether the respondent victimised Mr Sungaila and Mr Saulius Banys, in terms of section 77(2) of the Acts by dismissing them because they made a complaint to the Tribunal. In reaching my decision in this case, I have taken into account all of the submissions, both oral and written, made to the Tribunal in the course of its investigation.
Conditions of Employment
5.4. The complainants' claim with respect to conditions of employment relates to an alleged failure on the part of the respondent to provide them with a contract of employment and/or health and safety documentation in a language they understood. With respect to health and safety documentation, I am satisfied that the complainants were provided with a copy of the health and safety handbook but only in English. While Mr Saulius Banys and Mr Sungaila may have understood at least some of the content of this document when they received it, Mr Virgilijus Banys certainly did not.
5.5. It is well established by the Tribunal that, in circumstances where a contract of employment and/or health and safety documentation are initially provided or explained to an employee in a language they do not understand, an issue arises as to whether that documentation should be explained to them in a different language, and one likely to be understood by that employee . In all the circumstances of the present case, there was an obligation on the respondent to take reasonable steps to ensure that the complainants, who, even in the case of Mr Sungaila, did not fully understand the contents of the Health and Safety handbook, were made fully aware of the relevant contents.
5.6. I am satisfied that Mr A met with the complainants but never discussed the Health and Safety Handbook with any of them, even to ask if they understood it. I am satisfied that it was left to the complainants' own devices to have the Handbook translated. While they received the assistance of fellow workers in doing so, I am satisfied that this was on an informal basis and on the initiative of the workers themselves and had nothing to do with any effort on the part of the respondent to have these documents translated for them. In that context, I am satisfied that the respondent made no effort to meet its obligations to the complainants in this respect. Therefore, as the complainants did not understand the contents of the handbook in question, and the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure they understood it, they were treated less favourably than someone who had fluent English.
5.7. I am also satisfied that the complainants' were not provided with a contract of employment. I also note that a standard contract of employment was drawn up by the respondent. I find it difficult to believe that it would go to the effort of doing so without providing it to at least some workers. I also note its submission that there was a "particular problem" with non-Irish workers leaving contracts of employment "lying around". Particularly given all the other circumstances of these complaints, Mr A's effective denial of this submission at the hearing did not explain to my satisfaction why it would make such a submission in the first instance if it was not a view held by the respondent.
5.8. I am satisfied that Mr A did explain to the complainant's the most basic of their employment conditions and rights, in particular their pay and working hours. Nonetheless, the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination in this respect as, in all the circumstances of the present complaints, I am satisfied that contracts of employment were provided to Irish workers but, at least by the time the complainants were employed by the respondent, were not provided to non-Irish workers, including the complainants.
5.9. This is a clear-cut case of discrimination irrespective of the extent to which basic terms and conditions are explained to them in a language they understood. However, it should be added that I am satisfied that, while the complainants understood their pay and working hours, the other terms and conditions outlined in the contract of employment, including, in particular, grievance and disciplinary procedures were not explained to them in a language they understood. In that context, and for the same reasons as outlined in relation to health and safety documentation, I am satisfied that the respondent failed in its obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure the complainants understood these terms and conditions. Therefore, they were treated less favourably than someone who had fluent English in that respect.
Pay
5.10. The complainants made submissions and gave evidence in relation to their rates of pay. However, in accordance with Section 8(6)(a) of the Acts, complaints relating to remuneration are excluded from consideration under conditions of employment. Such complaints must be made as part of an Equal Pay claim, and such a claim has not been properly made to the Tribunal.
Training
5.11. The complainant's claim that they were discriminated against with respect to health and safety training. They claim that they never received the "toolbox talks" as alleged by the respondent, nor did they receive any form of induction and/or other health and safety training. However, whether they did or not is a matter for the Health and Safety Authority not this Tribunal unless they can establish facts from which it can reasonably be presumed that they were discriminated against in that respect. No such facts have been presented. If they were not provided with the training in question, it is clear that nobody else was either. Indeed, Mr Sungaila, at least, clearly was provided with additional training which very few employees appear to have received.
5.12. In all the circumstances of the present case, then, I am not satisfied that the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to training.
Dismissal
5.13. The claim with respect to the dismissal is a question of fact, in that it turns on whether I accept the complainants' evidence or prefer the evidence of the respondent with respect to the circumstances surrounding the complainants' departure from the respondent's employment.
5.14. I note the information provided by the respondent with respect to its financial situation. These accounts would appear to indicate that, at the time in question, it did not have any financial difficulties of such nature that would suggest that it needed to make staff redundant. However, having considered all the evidence, both oral and written, that has been presented to the Tribunal by both parties with respect to this complaint, I am satisfied that the meeting described by the complainants in which they were told that certain workers would be made redundant did, in fact, take place. Furthermore, I am satisfied that Mr Virgilijus Banys' employment was terminated immediately after that meeting. I am also satisfied that Mr A did refer to Mr Banys' lack of English as a reason for his dismissal.
5.15. It is clear that the dismissal of Mr Virgilijus Banys was based on his limited knowledge of English. In all the circumstances of the present case, then, this dismissal was discriminatory. In particular in this respect, I can see no reason why a greater knowledge of English than he had was required for the position, particularly given that he had already worked for the respondent for several months.
5.16. I also find the evidence of the complainants to be more credible with respect to the termination of the employment of Mr Saulius Banys and Mr Sungaila. In that context, I note that, while Mr Saulius Banys was not told directly that the dismissal was due to making claims to the Tribunal, his dismissal took place immediately after he had taken that complainant and he had not been told at any stage previously that he himself would be dismissed. I am satisfied, with respect to both these complainants, that these facts are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption that they were dismissed because they had exercised their legitimate right to make a claim that they were discriminated against with respect to their conditions of employment. Their dismissal was therefore a victimisatory one and they have established a prima facie case on that basis.
5.17. The respondent's defence to the allegations of dismissal was based on a rebuttal of the facts presented by the complainants'. As I have found their version to be the more compelling, the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case of dismissal established by all three complainants in that respect. Finally, it should be noted that Section 79(1A) of the Acts requires me to deal with the discriminatory treatment and victimisation claims separately with respect to my decision in the matter.
6. Decision
6.1. Having investigated the above complaint, I hereby make the following decision pursuant to section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008:
6.2. I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against them on the race ground in terms of training contrary to Section 8(1)(c) of the Acts and in terms of Section 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Acts
6.3. I find that the respondent did discriminate against all three complainants on the race ground with respect to their conditions of employment, contrary to Section 8(1)(b) of the Acts and in terms of Section 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Acts;
6.4. I find that the respondent did discriminate against the complainant, Mr Virgilijus Banys, on the race ground with respect to his dismissal by it, contrary to Section 8(6)(c) of the Acts and in terms of Section 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Acts;
6.5. I find that the respondent victimised the complainants, Mr Saulius Banys and Mr Erikas Sungaila, with respect to their dismissal by it, contrary to Section 74(2) of the Acts;
6.6. In accordance with Section 82 of the Acts, I order the respondent to pay to the complainant, Mr Virgilijus Banys, the sum of €11,500 (being the approximate equivalent of six months basic salary) with respect to the discrimination in relation to conditions of employment and dismissal. This award is made to compensate the complainant for the distress caused to him as a result of the discrimination by the respondent. In that context, it is not in the nature of pay and is, therefore, not subject to tax.
6.7. In accordance with Section 82 of the Acts, I order the respondent to pay to the complainant, Mr Erikas Sungaila, the sum of €500 with respect to the discrimination in relation to conditions of employment. This award is made to compensate the complainant for the distress caused to him as a result of the discrimination by the respondent. In that context, it is not in the nature of pay and is, therefore, not subject to tax.
6.8. In addition, and in accordance with Section 79(1A), I order the respondent to pay to the complainant, Mr Erikas Sungaila, the sum of €27,000 (being the approximate equivalent of twelve months basic salary) with respect to the victimisatory dismissal. This award is made to compensate the complainant for the distress caused to him as a result of the victimisation by the respondent. In that context, it is not in the nature of pay and is, therefore, not subject to tax.
6.9. In accordance with Section 82 of the Acts, I order the respondent to pay to the complainant, Mr Saulius Banys, the sum of €500 with respect to the discrimination in relation to conditions of employment. This award is made to compensate the complainant for the distress caused to him as a result of the discrimination by the respondent. In that context, it is not in the nature of pay and is, therefore, not subject to tax.
6.10. In addition, and in accordance with Section 79(1A), I order the respondent to pay to the complainant, Mr Saulius Banys, the sum of €25,000 (being the approximate equivalent of twelve months basic salary) with respect to the victimisatory dismissal. This award is made to compensate the complainant for the distress caused to him as a result of the victimisation by the respondent. In that context, it is not in the nature of pay and is, therefore, not subject to tax.
_____________
Gary O'Doherty
Equality Officer
19th December, 2011