EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION NO: DEC-E/2012/184
PARTIES
MERAI
V
DERRYOWEN RETAILING T/A GROARKE CENTRA
File No: EE/2010/358
Date of issue: 18 December, 2012
Headnotes: Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008 - sections 6, 8, 14A and 74 -age- discriminatory treatment - harassment - victimisation - prima facie case.
1. DISPUTE
This dispute involves a claim by Mr. Toolsey Merai (hereafter called "the complainant") that he was (i) discriminated against by Derryowen Retailing t/a Groarke Centra (hereafter called "the respondent") in respect of his conditions of employment on grounds of age, in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts, (ii) harassed by the respondent on grounds of age, in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2008 and contrary to section 14A of those Acts and (iii) victimised by the respondent in terms of section 74 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 .
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant states that he was employed by the respondent as a Sales Assistant from October, 2008 until he resigned in April, 2010. He further states that all was well with his employment until January, 2010 when his weekly working hours was reduced. He contends that this amounts to less favourable treatment of him on grounds of age contrary to the Acts as he was the oldest Sales Assistant employed by the respondent. The complainant adds that around the same time the respondent conducted a campaign of harassment (also on grounds of age) and victimisation of him contrary to the Acts. The respondent rejects the complainant's allegations in their entirety.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998- 2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 13 May, 2010. In accordance with his powers under the Acts the Director delegated the complaint to the undersigned - Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, for investigation, decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. My investigation of the complaint commenced on 13 July, 2012 - the date the complaint was delegated to me. Submissions were received from both parties and a Hearing of the complaint took place on 31 August, 2012 and 6 November, 2012. A number of issues emerged at the Hearing which required further clarification and gave rise to correspondence between the Equality Officer and the parties. This process concluded in late November, 2012. The parties also agreed at the Hearing that the names of witness should be anonymised for the purposes of this Decision.
3. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT'S CASE
3.1 The complainant states that he was employed by the respondent as a Sales Assistant from October, 2008 until he resigned in April, 2010. He further states that during his period of employment he was the oldest employee. The complainant states that his working relationship with the respondent was an amicable one until January, 2010 when he (the complainant) returned from holiday. He states that in early January, 2010 he was told by Ms. R, who was a colleague and Manager of the Delicatessen at the respondent's shop, he should change his look and style. He states that he asked her what she meant by this comment and she didn't respond, although she advised him that the Management had instructed her to speak with him. The complainant confirmed in the course of the Hearing that he understood this reference to Management to mean the owners of the shop. The complainant adds that he wore the uniform shirt and jumper provided to him - the same as other employees. He adds that Ms. R made similar comments to him on a weekly basis until about three weeks before he resigned and that on each occasion she was unable or declined to offer any suggestion how he might change. He rejects the respondent's assertion that it only spoke to him on a single occasion about his appearance. He contends that this amounts to less favourable treatment and harassment of him on grounds of age contrary to the Acts.
3.2 The complainant states that prior to January, 2010 that he generally worked thirty-nine hours a week over five days and that from January, 2010 his hours were reduced without explanation. He adds that the shift roster was placed on the notice board in the staff area on Sunday. He states that on several occasions when he checked the roster on a Sunday he was assigned shifts for a number of days during the following week but that these shifts subsequently changed - the rosters were amended by tippex - he was not given the hours and they were given to younger employees. The complainant adds that when he raised this matter with Ms. R she told him to change his style and subsequently told him to talk to Mr. N - the owner of the shop. He further states that when he raised the matter with Mr. N (the first time in mid-January, 2010) he told him to speak with Ms. R. In addition, the complainant states that on a number of occasions when he attended work he was sent home early, primarily by Mr. K, who was the Duty Manager at the time. He states that the first occasion this occurred was 22 February, 2010. However, the complainant subsequently stated in the course of the second day of Hearing that he was mistaken in this date and said that Mr. K sent him home early on 23 January, 2010 and Mr. A (another Duty Manager) sent him home early on 30 January, 2010 and confirmed that he had also been sent home early on 22 and 23 February, 2010 by Mr. K. The complainant states that he was not given any explanation for this treatment of him. He adds that on the week ending 31 January, 2010 he only received nineteen hours when another employee (Mr. J) was rostered for thirty-one hours. He submits that this amounts to less favourable treatment of him on grounds of age contrary to the Acts.
3.3 The complainant is a student. He adds that his timetable during the semester commencing January, 2010 required him to attend classes on Monday-Wednesday mornings each week. He states that although he gave the respondent details of his timetable he was rostered on a number of occasions to work on days and times when he was due to attend college. He was unable to furnish details of when this started and the number of occasions involved but stated that one such occasion was during week commencing 22 February, 2010. He states that he was rostered to work Monday-Friday that week on times when he was due to attend college. He adds that he raised this matter with Ms. R and she told him there was nothing she could do about it. The complainant states that he worked two four and a half hour shifts on the Monday and Tuesday and did not work for the remainder of the week, despite the fact that he had been rostered to work the remaining three days. He was unable to identify any colleague who was treated differently in the same circumstances. The complainant asserts that this amounts to discrimination and harassment of him on grounds of age as well as victimisation of him contrary to the Acts.
3.4 The complainant states that on the morning of 22 February, 2010 (the morning he asserts he was sent home early by Mr. K) he (the complainant) was approached by Mr. N and reprimanded for sitting on a heater behind a counter in the shop during working hours. The complainant states that he denied doing so and asked for CCTV of the incident to be shown to him but his request was refused. He states that shortly afterwards Mr. K approached him and told him to go home. He adds that when he tried to speak with Mr. N about this matter he (Mr. N) was very dismissive of him. The complainant rejects the respondent's evidence that he sought to go home early on that day due to backache. The complainant asserts that this amounts to less favourable treatment and victimisation of him contrary to the Acts.
3.5 The complainant states that his college term finished at end March, 2010 and he was therefore available for more shifts from then on. He states that on the first week off college he only received 7.5 hours whereas other employees received considerably more hours. He adds that he raised the matter with Ms. R she told him there was nothing she could do. The complainant contends that this amounts to less favourable treatment of him on grounds of age and victimisation contrary to the Acts.
3.6 The complainant states that sometime in March, 2010 (he was unable to specific about the date) the respondent gave all other employees name badges and did not give one to him. He says that when he raised the matter with another Manager (Mr. Z) he told the complainant that he knew nothing about name badges. The complainant further states that he was talking to a colleague (Ms. X) during a break one day (he was unable to say when) and on his return to work he was approached by Ms. R who told him that Management did not like Ms. X and that if he wanted to get full-time hours he should stop talking to her. He adds that he refused to do so and that Ms. R made the same comment to him on two subsequent occasions, although he could not indicate when this was. The complainant submits that this constitutes less favourable treatment of him on grounds of age as well as victimisation contrary to the Acts.
3.7 The complainant states that he was certified as unfit for work from 11 April, 2010 for two weeks and he wrote to Mr. N on 15 April, 2010 seeking reasons why his hours had been reduced. The complainant further states that he spoke with Ms. P (the wife of the owner Mr. N) on the telephone on 20 April, 2010 during which he asserts she (i) reproached him for his appearance attending work and failing to work in the Delicatessen Area during busy times and (ii) made the comment "what right do you have to work in Ireland". In the course of the Hearing the complainant rejected the respondent's assertion that it was he who asked to work in the Delicatessen Area and was refused. The complainant submits that this amounts to harassment of him on grounds of age contrary to the Acts.
3.8 The complainant states that he resigned from his position on 23 April, 2010. He further states that sometime during the week before he resigned he spoke with Mr. N about his situation - he had been advised by Ms. R to take up his concerns with Mr. N. The complainant adds that in the course of this conversation Mr. N told him he didn't have time to waste with the complainant, that he should get another job and that if he (the complainant) was replaced the shop would increase takings by €3,000 per week. Finally, the complainant states that he was working in an Annex attached to the main shop sometime in February/March, 2010. He states that the weather was cold and there was a small heater behind the counter. The complainant states that Mr. K took the heater from behind the counter because staff in the office were cold. The complainant submits this behaviour amounts to harassment of him on grounds of age and victimisation contrary to the Acts.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent agrees that the complainant was employed by it as a Sales Assistant from October, 2008 until he resigned in April, 2010. It was however, unable to say whether or not he was the oldest Sales Assistant during his period of employment. The respondent states that it operates a policy as regards dress code, personal appearance and hygiene which is set out in the Employee Handbook. It adds that employees are provided with a uniform (shirt and jumper) and they are expected to wear this when at work. The respondent rejects the complainant's assertion that it asked Ms. R to speak with him about his appearance. It adds that she was not the complainant's Manager and would therefore have no role in such matters. In the course of the Hearing Ms. R confirmed that she had never spoken with the complainant about his appearance although she accepted that as she was a compatriot of the complainant they would have spoken and any discussion of work related issues that may have occurred arose in that context. The respondent (Ms. P) stated that she spoke with the complainant on only one occasion (she could not remember when this was) about his appearance when he arrived to work and was dressed inappropriately and he went home to change. The respondent states that it takes this matter seriously and provided details of other employees with whom it (either Mr. N or Ms. P) spoke with about their appearance at work
4.2 The respondent (Mr. N) states that he prepares the rosters for each week. He states that the full-time employees are rostered first as they are guaranteed thirty-nine hours per week and the remainder of the hours are assigned to part-time staff on the basis of the business needs having regard to the availability of the people involved. The respondent adds that some staff can only work at certain times and, within reason, it makes every effort to accommodate individual requests whilst at the same time attempting to ensure staff are treated equally. It further states that on occasion staff change shifts between each other without regard to the respondent. In the course of the Hearing Mr. N confirmed that this was permissible once the shift was covered. The respondent emphatically rejected the assertion that it changed the rosters so as to re-assign hours to younger employees. It states that the complainant went on annual leave in November, 2009 but did not resume duty until 6 January, 2010. The respondent adds that it was not aware the complainant was on sick leave until that time - it had not received any medical certificate covering the absence - and that once it became aware the complainant was available for work it rostered him immediately. It adds that when the complainant sought additional hours it rostered him for night shifts but the complainant advised these were unsuitable after a couple of weeks.
4.3 The respondent states that it was unaware of the complainant's college attendance pattern and consequently this had no bearing on the manner in which the complainant was rostered hours. The respondent accepts that the complainant was rostered for full hours over five days during the week commencing 22 February, 2010. It further accepts that the complainant only worked nine hours that week - two four and a half hour shifts on Monday and Tuesday. It adds that it does not know why the complainant did not report for duty for the remainder of the week and notes from the rosters that the shifts originally assigned to him were taken up by another employee who had not originally been rostered. The respondent states that other part-time staff had their hours cut in the first quarter of 2010 and provided details of same. It adds that the complainant was sent home on the morning of 22 February, 2010 but that this was agreed by Mr. N because the complainant had complained of backache that morning. In the course of the Hearing Mr. K accepted that he had sent the complainant home early on a small number of occasions when business was slack. He was unable to say when this happened but added that he had also sent home at least three other employees (details supplied) in similar circumstances.
4.4 The respondent emphatically rejects the complainant's assertion that it issued name badges to staff in March, 2012. It states that whilst the wearing of name badges is required under the Centra Employee Handbook Mr. N made a decision not to adopt the policy. It adds that he did so to minimise the possibility of customers seeking to misrepresent issues by naming a staff member in an effort to defraud the respondent. The respondent states that as a Centra Store it is subjected to regular assessment in terms of the shop, the products it offers and its standard of customer service generally as part of Centra's "Mystery Shopper Programme". The respondent furnished copies of the documentation which forms part of this assessment on several occasions between 2008 and 2012. It adds that on each occasion the respondent was marked down for staff not wearing name badges.
4.5 The respondent rejects the complainant's assertion that it encouraged Ms. R to prevent the complainant from talking with Ms. X. It repeats that Ms. R was not his Line Manager and therefore would have no role to discuss such a matter with him. It states that the only occasion a member of staff would be instructed not to talk to a colleague is if it impinged on customer service. In the course of the Hearing Ms. R emphatically rejected the complainant's assertion on this matter. In addition, the respondent states that it had previously paid for the full fees for Ms. X to undertake a two year Diploma in Retail Management in DIT and submits that such action is entirely at variance to the complainant's assertion of how it viewed Ms. X. The respondent agrees that the complainant spoke with Ms. P on 20 April, 2010. The respondent (Ms. P) recalls that the complainant referred to his reduction in hours during this conversation and that he referred to working in the Delicatessen as a way of increasing his hours. The respondent states that the complainant was not trained to work in that area and consequently his suggestion could not be entertained. In the course of the Hearing Ms. R -who is the Delicatessen Manager - stated that a central part of her role was to ensure that staff in the area were appropriately trained to work there and that their training was maintained. She stated that she would not permit someone who was not so trained to work in the area and confirmed this had never happened during her tenure. The respondent also rejects the assertion that Ms. P reproached him for his appearance during this conversation and states that it only raised his appearance on a single occasion as detailed at paragraph 4.1 above. In the course of the Hearing Ms. P strongly rejected that she made the comment attributed to her about the complainant's right to work in Ireland. She adds that over the past number of years the respondent has employed in excess of 100 non-nationals and has come to understand the various cultures and practical needs of those staff.
4.6 The respondent (Mr. N) emphatically rejects the complainant's assertion that he (Mr. N) spoke with the complainant during the week prior to his resignation or that he made the comment attributed to him. The respondent accepts that the complainant worked in the Annex on occasion and states that other staff also worked there as necessary. The respondent recalls a radiator being removed from this area on only one occasion, although it cannot remember when this was. It adds that it was removed because it was faulty. In the course of the Hearing Mr. K stated that he removed the appliance in question and that it was a portable radiator. He added that it was removed because it was faulty and was "tripping the power" in the area. He further stated that a replacement heater was provided within a couple of days.
4.7 In summary, the respondent submits, in the first instance, that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, harassment or victimisation contrary to the Acts. It further submits that if it is not correct in this regard it has furnished the Tribunal with explanations for each of the alleged incidents which rebut any inference of unlawful treatment which might arise.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issues for decision by me are whether or not the respondent (i) discriminated against the complainant in respect of his conditions of employment on grounds of age, in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts, (ii) harassed the complainant on grounds of age, in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2008 and contrary to section 14A of those Acts and (iii) victimised the complainant in terms of section 74 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008. 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 presented at the Hearing.
5.2 Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998- 2008 sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It provides, in effect, that where facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which discrimination may be inferred, it shall be for the respondent to prove the absence of discrimination. The test for applying that provision is well settled in a line of Decisions of this Tribunal and the Labour Court and it requires the complainant to prove, on balance of probabilities, the primary facts upon which he relies in seeking to raise an inference of discrimination. It is only if this initial burden is discharged and the Equality Officer is satisfied that the facts as established are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the burden of proving that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the respondent. If the complainant does not discharge the initial probative burden required his case cannot succeed.
5.3 Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 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) of the Acts defines the discriminatory ground of age as follows - "as between any two persons ..... that they are of different ages". The complainant contends that he was the oldest Sales Assistant employed by the respondent during his period of employment and the respondent was unable to dispute this. Consequently, it is conceivable that every alleged incident of less favourable treatment of him could be prima facie discriminatory. However, the Labour Court in Dyflin v Ivana Spasic1, in accepting the comments of Mummery J in the judgement of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Madarassy v Nomura International 2 held as follows "that the Court should consider the primary facts which are relied upon by the Complainant in their proper context". It went on to say "that in considering if the burden of proof shifts the Court should consider any evidence adduced by the Respondent to show that, when viewed in their proper context, the facts relied upon do not support the inference contended for by the Complainant.
5.4 The complainant asserts that the respondent, through Ms. R, repeatedly informed him from January, 2010 that he had to should change his look and style. The respondent rejects this assertion stating that Ms. R was not his Line Manager, a point which is accepted by the complainant. Moreover, Ms. R gave evidence at the Hearing on this matter. I found her to be a forthright witness who gave her evidence in a credible manner. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties on this issue I am not satisfied that the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant is sufficient to establish a prima facie of discrimination on grounds of age and this element of his complaint fails.
5.5 The complainant contends that the unexplained reduction in his weekly hours of work amounts to less favourable treatment of him. He further contends that he was assigned shifts when he was due to attend college and was not assigned shifts when he was available to work and that this also amounts to discrimination of him on grounds of age. Finally, he asserts that when he was at work he was sent home early on several occasions and this is also less favorable treatment of him contrary to the Acts. The respondent accepts that the complainant may have been sent home early on a number of occasions but rejects that it treated him in a discriminatory manner. It is clear from the copy rosters submitted by the respondent that the complainant's weekly hours of work were reduced in early 2010 relative to those he worked in the last quarter of 2009. However, the rosters also indicate that a number of other employees also had their hours cut. Whilst, the reduction in the complainant's hours is slightly more than other employees I can find no discernible pattern which would support the assertion that the complainant's age was factor in the manner in which shifts/hours were assigned to him.
5.6 The complainant states that he was a student and was required to attend lectures in the morning Monday-Wednesday each week. He asserts that he assigned shifts when he was due to attend college and that this amounts to discrimination of him on grounds of age. I have examined the rosters submitted by the respondent. These rosters show that the complainant was not assigned shifts which conflict with his lectures until 22 February, 2010 - about seven weeks into his semester. On the first morning of this particular week the complainant was sent home early from work - a point which I shall address later in this Decision. The complainant also contends that the first week after his studies ended he was only assigned 7.5 hours whereas colleagues were assigned more hours. I have examined the rosters for this week (week commencing 5 April, 2010) and they show that the complainant had been assigned two further shifts that week (totaling ten hours) but did not complete them as he went on sick leave. I note the hours he had been assigned this week were in line with the hours he had been assigned in previous weeks. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties on this matter I am not satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination as regards the shifts he was assigned and this element of his complaint must fail.
5.7 It is common case that the complainant was sent home early from work on a number of occasions. However, the complainant's recollection of the details of these events is extremely sketchy and inconsistent. The one day both parties agree he was sent home early was 22 February, 2010. The respondent contends that he went home early that day because he requested to be allowed home due to a backache and Mr. N permitted this. The complainant rejects this assertion stating that he was sent home by Mr. K after Mr. N had remonstrated with him (the complainant) for sitting on a heater. In the course of the Hearing the complainant denied that he ever suffered from backache. The respondent furnished me with a medical certificate submitted by the complainant covering his absence from work in December, 2009. This medical certificate states that the complainant is unfit for work due to backache. Having considered the evidence on this matter I prefer, on balance, the respondent's version of events. The respondent (Mr. K) accepts that he sent the complainant home on other occasions when the business was slack. He adds however that it also sent three other named employees home in similar circumstances. The complainant was unable to take issue with this. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the complainant has established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be inferred and this element of his complaint cannot therefore succeed.
5.8 The complainant contends that the respondent gave name badges to all other staff in March, 2012, that it omitted him from this process and that this constitutes discrimination of him on grounds of age. The respondent rejects that this occurred. It states that it is not its practice to have staff wear name badges in the shop so as to minimise potential for fraud by customers. It furnished a number of reports covering the past number of years in respect of its assessment under the Centra "Mystery Shopper Programme". I have examined these reports and I am satisfied that it is not the respondent's practice to have staff wear name badges. Consequently, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of this element of his complaint. Finally as regards the discriminatory treatment aspect of his complaint, the complainant asserts that the respondent, again through Ms. R, brought pressure to bear on him to cease speaking with a colleague (Ms. X) if he wanted to get full-time hours. The respondent rejects this assertion repeating its comment that Ms. R would have no reason to discuss this matter with the complainant as she was not his Line Manager. Again Ms. R attended at the Hearing and emphatically rejected the complainant's assertions on this issue. The complainant states that he was warned off speaking with Ms. X because the Management did not like her. However, the respondent had previously paid the fees for Ms. X to complete a third level retail qualification in DIT and produced documentary evidence to support this. I am satisfied that the respondent's actions in this regard are inconsistent with the complainant's assertion that the respondent disliked her to such an extent to effectively ostracise her with her colleagues. Having carefully evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties I am not satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on this element of his complaint and it cannot therefore succeed.
5.9 The complainant also contends that he was subjected to harassment by the respondent on grounds of age contrary to the Acts. Section 14A of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 defines harassment as follows:
"...any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds ....
being conduct which has ... the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person."
The complainant asserts that a number of the alleged incidents mentioned above also amount to harassment of him and I shall return to this shortly. He asserts that in addition to those alleged incidents, the respondent also harassed him on grounds of age in respect of (i) the telephone conversation between him and Ms. P on 20 April, 2010 and (ii) the manner in which the respondent removed the radiator from the Annex. Whilst I am satisfied that the comments during the telephone conversation were heated they cannot be considered to amount to harassment of the complainant on grounds of age contrary to the Acts. If the comment attributed to Ms. P as regards the complainant's right to work in this country was said - and I make no finding in this regard - it would be more likely to support an assertion of harassment on grounds of race contrary to the Acts. Similarly, I cannot find any basis upon which the complainant could establish a prima facie case of harassment on grounds of age contrary to the Acts as the removal of the radiator for whatever period it was missing, clearly impacted on other employees of the respondent. The complainant also contends that the incident concerning the uniform amounts to harassment of him, in addition to it constituting less favourable treatment of him on grounds of age. Having considered the arguments advanced I am not satisfied that the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proof required of him. In light of my comments above I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment of him on grounds of age contrary to the Acts and this aspect of him complaint therefore fails.
5.10 The final aspect of the complainant's claim is that he was victimised by the respondent in terms of section 74(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008. In Tom Barrett v Department of Defence3 the Labour Court set out the three components which must be present for a claim of victimisation under section 74(2) of the Acts to be made out. It stated that (i) the complainant must have take action of a type referred to at paragraphs (a)-(g) of section 74(2) - what it terms a protected act, (ii) the complainant must be subjected to adverse treatment by his/her employer and (iii) the adverse treatment must be in reaction to the protected act having been taken by the complainant. The complainant failed to identify what protected act he took and when he took it. Consequently, he has failed at the first hurdle of the test established and this element of his complaint cannot succeed.
6. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
I have completed my investigation of these complaints and in accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 I issue the following decision. I find that the complainant -
(i) has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of age in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998- 2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts in respect of his conditions of employment;
(ii) has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment on grounds of age in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998- 2008 and contrary to section 14A of those Acts;
(iii) has failed to establish a prima facie case of victimisation in terms of section 74(2) of the Employment Equality acts, 1998-2008
and his complaint fails in its entirety
______________________________________
Vivian Jackson
Equality Officer
18 December, 2012
1 EDA 0823
2 [2007] IRLR 246
3 EDA1017