EDA1423

• Based on the deliberations set out above, I herewith dismiss the case on hand as being of misconceived jurisdiction pursuant to S.77A of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2011.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Equality Tribunal under the Act on 31 January 2013 alleging sexual harassment on the ground of gender. In related proceedings the parties, with the assistance of a Rights Commissioner, reached agreement on settlement terms to proceedings then being pursued under the Unfair Dismissals Act and this complaint under the Employment Equality Act. In return for withdrawing those proceedings the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant the sum of €4,000 within four weeks of the date of the agreement. The Respondent delayed the payment beyond the agreed period. Shortly thereafter the Complainant’s representative wrote to the Respondent seeking payment of the agreed sum. The amount was paid by cheque to the Complainant within five working days. The Complainant cashed the cheque six days later. The Complainant then sought to continue with the instant complaint on the grounds that the payment was not made within the four week period specified in the Agreement.

The Equality Officer dismissed the Complaint on the basis that it was misconceived. The Complainant appealed against that decision to this Court.

The Court gave the parties an opportunity to be heard at a formal hearing into the complaint on 13 March 2014.

The Complainant stated that she had agreed to the settlement terms at the time as she needed money to purchase a car to facilitate her search for work. She said that the delay in payment of the monies due caused her to lose the opportunity to buy a car she had identified as suitable for her requirements. She accepted payment of the sum however as she needed the money to buy an alternative car. She was of the view however that as the agreement had not been strictly complied with she was not bound by the terms limiting her capacity to pursue the instant complaint.

The Respondent acknowledged that it had overlooked making the payment within the agreed time. However it argued that the Complainant’s representative sought payment of the agreed sum after the four weeks had elapsed. It responded to this request immediately and the Complainant accepted the payment. It argued that the Complainant at no point indicated to it that payment of the monies within four weeks was a fundamental condition of the agreement. It argued that the Complainant accepted the late payment of the sum due. It argued that the matter now being pursued had therefore been settled between the parties and no cause of action could arise in respect of this matter.

Findings of the Court

The Court has examined the information supplied to it by both parties to this dispute. The Court has also examined the reasoning outlined by the Equality Officer for the decision he made in the matter. Having considered all the material facts in this case the Court finds that the Complainant entered into an agreement to settle the matter before the Court. That agreement was complied with in all material respects. The late payment was drawn to the attention of the Respondent and it immediately made good on its obligations under the Agreement. The Complainant had requested it to do so and had accepted the monies offered in discharge of the obligations of the Respondent under the Agreement. It is not now open to the Complainant, having taken the benefit, to seek to avoid her obligations under the Agreement. Accordingly the Court finds that the Equality Officer correctly decided the matter under the Act and determines accordingly.

Determination

The Court affirms the Decision of the Equality Officer. The appeal is dismissed.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Brendan Hayes
CO'R______________________
28th May 2014Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.