EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC - E2012 - 146
PARTIES
Mr Jacek Jablonka
(represented by Richard Grogan and Associates, Solicitors)
and
Publicity Mailing Ltd
(represented by Peninsula Business Services)
File References: EE/2010/369
Date of Issue: 5th November 2012
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Mr Jacek Jablonka that Publicity Mailing Ltd discriminated against him on the ground of race contrary to Section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, in terms of conditions of employment, other discriminatory conduct, and discriminatory dismissal.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 17 May 2010. A submission was received from the complainant on 1 February 2011. A submission was received from the respondent on 18 March2011. 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. The respondent did not attend the hearing, despite being notified, by registered post, of the time and location of same.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Written Submission
2.1. The complainant is a Polish national. He alleges that he did not receive a contract of employment, nor health and safety documentation or training. He further states that he was told his team was more expensive than others and that this is why he was dismissed.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Written Submission
3.1. The respondent denies discriminating the complainant as alleged or at all. It submits that the complainant took far longer than others in his role to complete his work, despite the fact that he had more staff. It further submits that the complainant's employment was terminated because of his poor performance, and allege that he abused the system whereby he was requested to monitor his own working hours and to monitor his team effectively. The respondent attached numerous documents to their submission in evidence of this.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. The issues for decision in this case are whether the complainant was discriminated against and discriminatorily dismissed 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 complainant's representative withdrew all complaints except for discriminatory dismissal.
4.4. The complainant gave evidence with regard to this. He confirmed that his role with the respondent was as a supervisor, and that all other supervisors were Polish like himself. He commenced employment with the respondent on 24 July 2009. At the beginning of January 2010, the complainant's manager called a meeting with the complainant and his entire team of leafleters and dismissed the whole team. It was put to the complainant that there were problems with his deliveries and that the work rate was too slow.
4.5. By way of explanation, the complainant stated that when his team delivered leaflets when it rained, the leaflets would sometimes disintegrate before they could be put into letterboxes. He stated that at one point, management accepted this was a problem, but later instructed to deliver the leaflets no matter what state they were in. According to the complainant, the respondent did not care about people and treated staff "like tools". Only commands were expressed. The complainant stated that he tried to carry out his work as best he could.
4.6. According to the complainant, he had another meeting with his manager a few days later, where he was offered another team to work with. However, nothing came of this despite repeated queries on the part of the complainant, and by mid-March, he was told that his employment was terminated. He received his P45, backdated to 6 January 2010.
4.7. The complainant's representative further submitted that the fact the complainant was only told in general terms what was wrong with his performance amounted to discriminatory treatment because he was not an Irish national, and cited the Labour Court decision in Campbell Catering v. Rasaq [EED048] in support.
4.8. I experienced the complainant as a credible witness, and therefore have reason to believe that the history of his employment with the respondent was not a happy one. However, the fact that all his colleagues in the supervisor grade, by his own evidence, were also Polish makes it impossible for me to infer that it was his nationality which was the reason for his dismissal. Accordingly, I find that his claim can not succeed.
5. Decision
5.1. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to S. 79(6) of the Acts, that Publicity Mailing Ltd did not discriminatorily dismiss Mr Jacek Jablonka, on the ground of his nationality, contrary to S. 8(6) of the Acts.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
5 November 2012