EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION NO: DEC-E/2012/109
PARTIES
Ms. Vicky Farrell
(Represented by Ballymun Community Law Centre)
AND
Kerry Group Services Limited
(Represented by IBEC)
FILE NO: EE/2009/855
DATE OF ISSUE: 23 August, 2012
1. Dispute
This dispute involves a claim by Ms. Vicky Farrell that she was discriminated against by Kerry Group Services Limited, on the grounds of, her disability in terms of section 6 (2)(g) of the Employment and contrary to section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2008, in relation to her conditions of employment and in relation to her dismissal. The complainant has also made claims in relation to failure to provide reasonable accommodation and a claim of equal pay with a named comparator. A claim of victimisation was also submitted but was withdrawn at the hearing.
2. Background
2.1 The complainant referred a complaint against the above respondent under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 27th November, 2009.
2.2 In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 the Director delegated the case on 1st of May, 2012 to me, Orla Jones, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of those Acts This is the date I commenced my investigation. Written submissions were received from both parties. As required by section 79(1) of the Acts and, as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a hearing on 13th of July, 2012.
3. Summary of complainant's case
3.1 It is submitted that the complainant was employed by the respondent, from 24th of March 2000 until 2nd of June, 2009 when she was dismissed due to incapacity. The complainant at the time of her dismissal was employed in the respondent's canteen.
3.2 The complainant in 2007, had an accident at home where she broke her hip and that following this accident, had a hip replacement operation. Following this the complainant commenced a period of sick leave from July to October 2007 and returned to work on a part time basis initially before returning to full time hours in February 2008.
3.4 It is submitted that following her return to full time hours the complainant began to suffer pain in her hip caused by her workload and duties. The complainant submits that she spoke to her Manager regarding this pain and asked that she be considered for any redundancy package which might be offered in the future, and submits that he said that she would be considered for same.
3.5 In February 2009 the complainant commenced sick leave. She submitted medical certs from her GP indicating that this sick leave was due to a hip injury. The complainant received a number of phone calls from her employer asking for a date for her return to employment. The complainant on 24th April 2009 submitted a letter from her GP stating that she was unable to attend work for the next couple of months.
3.6 The complainant on 12th May 2009 attended with an Occupational Health Specialist appointed by the respondent. She reported that the complainant was unfit for manual work but found her fit for desk based duties or duties which do not require prolonged standing or walking. She also recommended that the complainant be considered for re deployment or early retirement.
3.7 On 2nd of June 2009 the complainant received a letter of termination of employment which was delivered to her home by courier. It is submitted that the complainant was shocked and upset by this as she had no warning that her employment was to be terminated. The letter stated that following the report of the Occupational Health Specialist and that of her own GP, the respondent considered her to be incapable of performing her duties of employment. The letter also stated that no light duties were available. Prior to this letter no comments were received or sought from the complainant.
3.8 The complainant attended a meeting with the respondent on 18th June, 2009. The complainant submits that her manager, at this meeting admitted that the situation had been handled wrongly but added that the complainant was an insurance risk and could not return to her employment. The complainant was also informed that other positions had been examined but nothing had been located.
3.9 On 22 June, 2009 the complainant received a letter from the respondent stating that employment options of alternative duties or putting an employee to work with the complainant on a daily basis were considered but were not suitable due to the cost involved.
3.10 It is submitted that, a few weeks after the complainant's dismissal, the respondent offered a voluntary redundancy package to its employees. It is submitted that the complainants employment was terminated in order to preclude her from applying for this redundancy package and that this constitutes discrimination in relation to a condition of employment and or a breach of the equal pay provisions of the Acts.
4. Summary of respondent's case
4.1 The respondent, submits that the complainant was employed with them from 29th March 2000 until 2nd of June 2012 when she was dismissed on the grounds of capability. It is submitted that every effort and consideration was made to facilitate a return to work for the complainant prior to reaching this conclusion.
4.2 The respondent submits that the complainant, in 2007, had an extended period of absence following surgery and that she had been facilitated on her return to work with reduced hours and a 3 day week for a period of 16 weeks.
4.3 On 9th of February 2009 the complainant went absent from work and regular contact was maintained by the respondent via telephone and letter during this absence period. The respondent submits that as the claimant was showing no signs of returning to work the HR Officer, at the time wrote to the complainant asking her to meet with the respondents 3rd party Occupational Health providers, Medwise.
4.4 It is submitted that the complainant met with the Medwise Health Nurse on 1st of April, 2009 who was to review the complainant again following her forthcoming GP's review. The complainants GP review took place on 24th April, 2009 and following this the complainant was assessed by the Occupational Health doctor at Medwise on 12th May 2009. Her report concluded that the complainant was unfit for heavy manual work and was unlikely to become fit for this in the foreseeable future. It also made recommendations regarding what duties the complainant would be fit to undertake.
4.5 It is submitted that the respondents HR Officer had a follow up conversation with the complainant on 13th May 2009 to ascertain how the complainant felt following the appointment.
4.6 It is submitted that the respondent, following receipt of the Medwise doctor's report, thoroughly considered the alternatives for the complainant and the skills required for each alternative having regard to the guidelines set out in the report. The respondent s submission outlines the alternatives considered.
4.7 It is submitted that the respondent, in light of the complainant's medical assessments and having considered the employment options and associated costs decided that the complainant's employment would be terminated. It submits that the HR Officer phoned the complainant to advise her of this and that a letter (dated 2nd of June) to confirm this was then couriered to her home on 3rd of June, 2009.
4.8 The respondent submits that it was outlined to the complainant verbally and in writing that she could appeal in writing to this decision but that she did not do so but that the respondent did meet with the complainant at her request after her termination of employment.
4.9 The respondent denies that the complainant was dismissed in order to avoid her obtaining entitlement to apply for the voluntary redundancy and states that no voluntary redundancy package was planned or available at the time of the complainant's termination of employment.
5. Findings and Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 The issue for decision by me now is, whether or not, the respondent discriminated against the complainant, on grounds of disability, in terms of Section 6 and contrary to Section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008, in relation to her conditions of employment, equal pay, and in relation to her dismissal. Furthermore, I must also consider whether the respondent failed to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation. In reaching my Decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence at the Hearing.
5.2 Section 85A of the Employment Equality 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. If she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the respondent to prove the contrary. 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".
5.3 Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 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)(g) of the Acts defines the discriminatory ground of disability as follows - "as between any 2 persons, ... that one is a person with a disability and the other is not or is a person with a different disability".
5.4 Disability Ground
5.4.1 In the present case, it is submitted by the complainant that she is a person with a disability, within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Equality Acts.
Disability" is defined in Section 2 of the Acts as meaning -
"(a) the total or partial absence of a person's bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person's body,
(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,
(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body,
(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or
(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,
and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person".
5.4.2 It is submitted that the complainant's condition of reduced mobility due to a hip injury which necessitated a hip replacement is covered by the definition in Section 2 (1) of the Acts. The respondent accepts that the complainant has a disability for the purposes of the Acts. In the course of the investigation and hearing the complainant's medical reports were submitted to the Tribunal, which verified her condition. I am satisfied that the complainant is a person with a disability within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008.
5.5 Discriminatory Dismissal
5.5.1 The complainant, at the hearing, outlined the circumstances surrounding her dismissal. The complainant, told the hearing that following an accident in her home where she injured her hip she endured a lot of hip pain while at work. She stated that this pain resulted in her going on a period of sick leave from work during which she submitted certs from her GP outlining the reason for her absence. She advised the hearing that she couldn't say when she would be fit to return to work as she was under her GP's care and had been advised to stay out of work during the period in question.
5.5.2 The complainant advised the hearing that she had initially had a period of sick leave due to her injury in 2007 and 2008 and that she returned to work on a 3 day week period initially. She advised the hearing that she then returned to work full time in February 2008 at her own request.
5.5.3 The complainant then outlined how she had again been in a lot of pain from her hip during the period up to February 2009 causing her to go out on sick leave from work. The complainant in her submission and at the hearing stated that she had at the respondents request attended with the respondents 3rd party Occupational Health providers, Medwise.
5.5.4 The complainant advised the hearing that she had met with the Medwise Health Nurse on 1st of April, 2009 who was to review the complainant again following her forthcoming GP's review. The complainant advised the hearing that she did not receive any report from the Nurse following this visit and was not aware whether any report or recommendation was made to the respondent following her visit. The complainant's GP review took place on 24th April, 2009 and the report from her GP indicated that it was doubtful that the complainant would manage to continue the duties she held with the respondent up to now and that she was unfit for work for the next few months. The complainant advised the hearing that following the visit with the Health Nurse she was contacted by Ms. C, HR Officer who asked her if she would attend with Dr. D, the Medwise Occupational Health Doctor. The complainant stated that she agreed to see Dr. D and that she saw her in May 2009.
5.5.5 The respondent advised the hearing that Ms. C, HR Officer during the relevant period had spoken with the Medwise Nurse following the complainant's initial visit and that following this conversation it was decided to refer the complainant to Dr. D the Medwise Occupational Health doctor.
5.5.6 Dr. D's report, which was submitted in evidence, concluded that the complainant was unfit for heavy manual work and was unlikely to become fit for this in the foreseeable future. It stated that she was fit for desk based duties or duties that do not require prolonged standing, walking, lifting (>10kgs), bending or stooping. It also stated that the complainant had no plans to return to any form of gainful employment and that the complainant had said she would not be able to return to work or any routine factory work for the foreseeable future.
5.5.7 The complainant confirmed that she had seen Dr. D's report as she had received it in the post either from Dr. D or from the respondent. The complainant stated that she did not agree with everything in the report but that she did not contact either the doctor or the respondent in this regard. The complainant at the hearing stated that she had been advised, in writing, by Ms. C, HR officer that the respondent would be in contact with her on receipt of Dr. D's recommendations. This was outlined in a letter to the complainant dated 6th May 2009 and signed by Ms. C, HR Officer. The complainant advised the hearing that the respondent had made no contact with her to discuss Dr. D's recommendations. The respondent, at the hearing, could neither confirm nor deny whether any contact had been made with the complainant to discuss Dr. D's recommendations as Ms. C has since left the respondent's employment. The current HR Officer was present and advised that there was no record of any discussion having taken place with the complainant.
5.5.8 The respondent in its submissions to the Tribunal and in its evidence at the hearing stated that following receipt of the Medwise doctor's report the respondent thoroughly considered the alternatives for the complainant and the skills required for each alternative having regard to the guidelines set out in the report. The respondent's submission outlines the tasks involved in the complainants current role in the canteen and indicated that this role involved prolonged standing stooping and bending. It also indicted potential hazards such as the possibility of the complainant falling on the wet floor after cleaning.
5.5.9 The respondent's evidence outlines the alternatives examined and states that all roles on the production floor involve prolonged standing, In addition the hygiene procedures require employees to walk through a boot wash with rotating rollers, which would be a risk to the complainant. It is submitted that the respondent has a small number of desk based jobs and that those employees have specialist skills and therefore moving the complainant to a desk based role was not an option. It was also submitted that the complainant had in the past declined the offer to complete an ECDL course. The complainant at the hearing denied that she was ever offered an ECDL course. The respondent at the hearing stated that this suggestion had been made by Mr. B who had since left the company and no formal record of this conversation was available.
5.5.10 It is the respondents evidence that they also looked at the option of having additional people work with the complainant full time but states that the respondent could not support this option due to the additional cost involved.
5.5.11 The complainant, at the hearing, stated that she had received no prior warnings nor had there been any discussion of a dismissal, prior to her receiving a letter of dismissal on 2nd of June, 2009. The complainant, Ms. F, told the hearing that she was very upset to receive this letter, especially as it was delivered to her home by courier without any advance notice or warning. The complainant advised the hearing that she had received no warning of such dismissal and had never had any warnings verbal or written, during her employment with the respondent. The complainant at the hearing, went on to state that she had been eager to return to work and that she could have returned to her duties provided she could avail of help with tasks which involved heavy lifting . The complainant also advised the hearing that she had prior to her sick leave always been able to call on other members of staff to help her with lifting and pointed out that in her role as team leader she had 2 staff members whom she could call on as needed.
5.5.12 The complainant in response to direct questioning advised the hearing that she did not lodge an appeal in writing to the letter of termination, as she had been in shock after receiving it, but that she had phoned the respondent and requested a meeting to discuss the matter.
5.5.13 The respondent submitted that Ms. C, HR Officer had phoned the complainant and explained to her, that in light of the medical assessments and having considered the employment options, it was decided that the her employment would be terminated. The respondent at the hearing stated that this phone call was made by the then HR Officer, Ms. C, but that no record of this phone call was available as she had since left the company. It submits that a letter to confirm this was then couriered to the complainant's home on 3rd of June, 2009.
5.5.14 The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant did not formally appeal the respondent's decision but that the respondent did meet with the complainant at her request after her termination of employment. The respondent in its submission denied that Mr. B, at this meeting, had acknowledged that the situation had been handled wrongly. However Mr. B at the hearing acknowledged that he had in fact said that the situation had been handled badly
5.5.15 The complainant in response to questioning advised the hearing that she was at no point advised that she was being considered for termination and that she did not need to have someone work with her full time, all she needed was to be able to call on someone to help her with any heavy lifting or carrying. The complainant also stated that, had the respondent given her the chance, she could have told them that all she needed to enable her to return to her duties was to be able to call on someone to help her. In saying this the respondent has to be guided the advice of the medical professionals as regards what is necessary to enable the complainant to return to work and to facilitate her in being able to do her job so while the recommendations in the report of Dr. B may not be what the complainant herself considers necessary or reasonable accommodation the respondent must make its decision as to what is reasonable based on the recommendations made in the medical report. It should also be noted that the accommodation which the complainant herself requests might not be what is deemed most suitable from a safety the point of view so reasonable accommodation is not necessarily what the complainant herself wants but what is deemed by the health professional as appropriate measures to be put in place to enable her to do her job. In addition, the employer must then consider whether it is possible to put in place such measures and must have regard to cost when factoring in what is reasonable accommodation. However having said that reasonable accommodation is a process and as outlined below it is a process which should involve consultation with the employee at several points in the process.
5.5.16 I am satisfied based on the above that the complainant was at the relevant time suffering from a disability within the meaning of Section 2 of the Acts. I am also satisfied based on the evidence of the complainant that she advised the respondent of her condition.
5.6 Reasonable Accommodation
5.6.1 Section 16(3) of the Acts, sets out the obligations and requirement on employers to take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability have access to, participate in or advance in employment. It requires an employer to make a proper and adequate assessment of the situation before taking a decision which is to the detriment of an employee with a disability - this approach was endorsed in Humphries v Westwood Fitness Club1.
5.6.2 Section 16(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts provides an employer with a complete defence to a claim of discrimination on the disability ground if it can be shown that the employer formed a bona fide belief that the complainant is not fully capable, within the meaning of the section, of performing the duties for which they have been employed. In the case of A Health and Fitness Club -v- A Worker2 the Labour Court set out the approach that should be taken in order that an employer can rely upon this defence, namely:
"if it can be shown that the employer formed the bona fide belief that the complainant is not fully capable, within the meaning of the section, of performing the duties for which they are employed. However, before coming to that view the employer would normally be required to make adequate enquiries so as to establish fully the factual position in relation to the employee's capacity.
The nature and extent of the enquiries which an employer should make will depend on the circumstances of each case. At a minimum, however, an employer, should ensure that he or she in full possession of all the material facts concerning the employee's condition and that the employee is given fair notice that the question of his or her dismissal for incapacity is being considered. The employee must also be allowed an opportunity to influence the employer's decision.
In practical terms this will normally require a two-stage enquiry, which looks firstly at the factual position concerning the employee's capability including the degree of impairment arising from the disability and its likely duration. This would involve looking at the medical evidence available to the employer either from the employee's doctors or obtained independently.
Secondly, if it is apparent that the employee is not fully capable Section 16(3) of the Act requires the employer to consider what if any special treatment or facilities may be available by which the employee can become fully capable. The Section requires that the cost of such special treatment or facilities must also be considered. Here, what constitutes nominal cost will depend on the size of the organisation and its financial resources.
5.6.3 In this case the Labour Court interpreted section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts as a process orientated approach which places an obligation upon an employer to embark upon a process of ascertaining the real implications for the employee's ability to do the job, taking appropriate expert advice, consulting with the employee concerned and considering with an open mind what special treatment or facilities could realistically overcome any obstacles to the employee doing the job for which s/he is otherwise competent and assessing the actual cost and practicality of providing that accommodation. This decision was also upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court where Dunne J.3 found that an employer that has failed to go through the aforementioned process orientated approach will have breached the requirements of the Acts, even if the employer might reasonably have supposed, without checking further, that the disability is serious enough to render the employee not fully capable of undertaking their duties under section 16(1) of the Acts.
5.6.4 In applying the Labour Court ruling in 'A Health and Fitness Club Vs A Worker' referenced above, it is clear that there was an obligation upon the respondent, in the first instance, to ascertain the level and extent of the complainant's disability. The respondent in this case when faced with a situation where an employee was unfit for work made appropriate enquiries to ascertain the extent of the employees condition by considering the reports of the complainants GP and by referring the employee to its Occupational Health specialists on two occasions (1st of April, and 12th of May).
5.6.5 The respondent, having received the report of the Occupational Health Specialist and the recommendations contained therein proceeded to evaluate the alternatives before arriving at a decision to terminate the complainant's employment.
5.6.7 However, the respondent failed to consult with the complainant when the employment alternatives were being looked and she was not advised that consideration was being given to her dismissal for incapacity. The complainant was thus given no opportunity to influence the decision which led to her ultimate dismissal for incapacity.
5.6.8 I am of the view that there was a clear obligation upon the respondent, when it became aware that the complainant was unable to return to her duties due to her disability to consult with her and advise her that certain employment alternatives were being looked at and that having concluded that there was no suitable alternative employment for her she was now being considered for termination. It is clear that the respondent did not bring any of these issues to the attention of the complainant prior to taking the decision that it could no longer retain her in employment.
5.6.9 Consequently, the complainant was not afforded any opportunity to participate in or influence the decision making process that resulted in her dismissal. In doing so, the respondent, who did initiate the process orientated approach, as set out by the Labour Court in the aforementioned A Health and Fitness Club -v- A Worker case, by making appropriate enquiries to ascertain the extent of the employees condition, then however proceeded to evaluate alternatives and make a decision to dismiss, without involving the employee who was the subject of such a decision.
5.6.10 Based on the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the complainant was not afforded any prior indication or notice by the respondent that it was contemplating the termination of her employment on the grounds of her incapacity to carry out her duties. It is clear, from the evidence adduced in this case that the first indication the complainant was afforded that her dismissal was being contemplated by the respondent was after the decision to terminate her employment had been made, a fact which was notified to her either by letter dated 2nd of June, 2009 or, if I am to accept the respondents evidence, which I am not, via a phone call made by Ms. C to the complainant advising her that her employment was being terminated. In any event the complainant was only advised that her dismissal for incapacity was being considered, after the decision to terminate her employment had been made and she was not given any opportunity to influence or input into this decision. The respondent accepted that the reason the complainant was dismissed was because it had concluded that her disability presented a health and safety risk in the workplace.
5.6.11 Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that the respondent, did make appropriate enquiries to ascertain the extent of the employees condition by considering the reports of the complainants GP and by referring the employee to its Occupational Health specialists, but failed to consult with or advise the complainant before coming to the conclusion that the complainant was incapable, on the grounds of her disability, of performing the duties for which she had been employed and therefore it cannot rely upon the defence available in section 16(1)(b) of the Acts. In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was dismissed from her employment in a discriminatory manner by the respondent on the grounds of her disability.
5.7 Equal Pay/Conditions of Employment -Access to redundancy Package
5.7.1 It is submitted that the complainant was dismissed by the respondent in order to avoid her obtaining entitlement to a redundancy package which was offered to employees six weeks after her dismissal for incapacity. The respondent denies that the complainant was dismissed for this reason and states that no voluntary redundancy package was planned or available at the time of the complainant's termination of employment.
5.7.2 The complainant advised the hearing that she was aware that plans for offering the voluntary redundancy scheme had been ongoing prior to her dismissal. The complainant told the hearing that she could not reveal the name of the person who had told her of these plans. Witness for the complainant Ms. H advised the hearing that she had been offered and had availed of this voluntary redundancy package in July 2009. Ms. H advised the hearing that she could not recall when she had first heard about the redundancy offer.
5.7.3 The respondent advised the hearing that the redundancy situation arose as a result of the company unexpectedly losing a number of large contracts during the period in question. The respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence to indicate the timescale involved in the decision and subsequent offer of the redundancy scheme, but following a request, from the Equality Officer at the hearing, submitted documents to the Tribunal which substantiated the respondents evidence that the redundancy scheme had not been available or decided upon at the time of the complainants termination of employment. Having examined the evidence submitted on this issue I can find no evidence to suggest that the respondent's decision to offer employees a voluntary redundancy package was made prior to its decision to terminate the complainant's employment. I should also add that, in any event, there is no guarantee that an application by the complainant to avail of the redundancy scheme would have been successful. I can also find no evidence to suggest that the decision to dismiss the complainant for incapacity was made in order to avoid the complainant obtaining entitlement to apply for a redundancy package.
6. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
6.1 I have completed my investigation of this complaint and in accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 I issue the following decision. I find -
(ii) that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on grounds of disability in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 -2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts in respect of her conditions of employment, and in respect of Equal Pay .
(i) that the respondent dismissed the complainant in circumstances amounting to discrimination on grounds of disability in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 -2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts and that it failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation within the meaning of section 16 of those Acts.
6.2 Section 82 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 provides that I can make an order for the effects of the discrimination. In considering the redress in this case, I have to be aware that any award for compensation should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. In making my award, I am mindful of the fact that the respondent, in this case, when faced with a situation where an employee was unfit for work did make appropriate enquiries to ascertain the extent of the employees condition, by considering the reports of the complainants GP and by referring the employee to its Occupational Health specialists on two occasions. The respondent then, however, evaluated alternatives and made a decision to dismiss without involving the complainant who was the subject of such a decision. Thus, the respondent failed to consult with, or involve the complainant before coming to the conclusion that the complainant was incapable, on the grounds of her disability.
6.3 Having taken the foregoing matters into consideration, I am of the view that an award of €8,000 is appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.
6.4 Therefore, in accordance with S. 82 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, I order that the respondent pay the complainant €8,000 in compensation for her discriminatory dismissal. This award is in compensation for the distress experienced by the complainant in relation to the above matters, and is not in the nature of pay, and therefore not subject to tax.
_____________________
Orla Jones
Equality Officer
23 August 2012
1 [2004] 15 ELR 296
2 Labour Court Determination No. EED037 - A Health and Fitness Club -v- A Worker (case upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court)
3 Humphreys -v- Westwood Fitness Club (2004) ELR 296