EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC - E2012 - 145
PARTIES
Norbert Bodzioch and Arkadiusz Tokarski
(represented by Richard Grogan and Associates, Solicitors)
and
Flynn Mechanical Services Ltd
File References: EE/2010/448-449
Date of Issue: 5th November 2012
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Norbert Bodzioch and Arkadiusz Tokarski that Flynn Mechanical Services Ltd discriminated against them on the ground of race contrary to Section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, in terms of training, conditions of employment and other discriminatory conduct.
1.2. The complainants referred a complaint each under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 15 June 2010. A submission was received from the complainants on 18 February 2011. A submission was received from the respondent on 1 April 2011. On 21 September 2012, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 26 October 2012.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Written Submission
2.1. The complainants are Polish nationals. They allege that they did not receive a proper contract of employment and that their Irish colleagues were treated better than they were, without giving any particulars.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Written Submission
3.1. The respondent denies discriminating the complainant as alleged or at all. It submits that all staff were treated equally, that all staff received contracts of employment and that a Polish interpreter was engaged by the respondent to ensure that Polish staff understood their terms and conditions of employment.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. The issues for decision in this case are whether the complainants were discriminated against within the meaning of the Acts.
4.2. In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to S. 85A of the Acts. 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.
4.3. At the hearing of the complaint, the representative for the complainants withdrew all complaints with regard to training or receipt of a contract, and only alleged that his clients had not been paid according to the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry, whereas Irish comparators had. As the respondent disputed this and the complainants adduced absolutely no evidence to sustain their claims, I find that they have not established a prima facie case within the meaning of the Acts, and that their complaints must fail.
5. Decision
5.1. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to S. 79(6) of the Acts, that Flynn Mechanical Services did not discriminate against Norbert Bodzioch and Arkadiusz Tokarski on the ground of their race contrary to S. 8 of the Acts.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
5 November 2012