EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 to 2011
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-133
PARTIES
Sean O’Brien
(Represented by Gerry Meehan Solicitor)
-v-
BS&B Flamesafe LTD
(Represented by IBEC)
File reference: EE/2014/021
Date of issue: 1 December 2015
1. Background to Claim
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Sean O’Brien (hereinafter the “Complainant”) that he was discriminated against by BS&B Flamesafe Ltd (hereinafter the “Respondent”) on the grounds of civil status contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 (hereinafter the “Acts”)
1.2 The Complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 21st January 2014 under the Acts. In August 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Caroline McEnery, an Adjudicator, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79 (1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation we informed both parties by letter sent registered and ordinary post on 22nd July 2015 that we had scheduled a hearing for 15th September 2015. The Complainant and the Respondent attended the hearing along with their representatives.
1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to the 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
2. The Claimant Case
2.1 The claimant and his partner (who were neither married not in a civil partnership) had been working in Canada but returned to Ireland due to Ireland due to a personal family matter. The couple were not living together upon their return.
2.2 The claimant and his partner were separately offered employment by the respondent company and they commenced employment on Monday 6th January 2014. During the induction training on that day the employee’s confirmed to a member of the HR team that they were in a relationship. This was not identified as a problem.
2.3 The fact the pair were in a relationship arose again during a meeting with a member of the sales team and an engineering manager, again there was no indication that this would be an issue.
2.4 On the afternoon of Tuesday 7th January the claimant and his partner were introduced to a member of staff that they believed to be a senior member of the HR Team. He informed them that they were being given one weeks’ notice due to a conflict of interest presented by their employment with the company as they were in a relationship.
3. The company’s response
3.1 The Company’s response was that the claimant did not have locus standi to bring a claim under the Employment Equality Acts for discrimination on the ground of Civil Status as he did not meet the definition of Civil Status per the Act.
4. Decision
4.1 In accordance with Section 79(6) of the Acts I issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Acts I am obliged to hold a hearing.
4.2 It is my finding that the claimant in this case has no standing under the Employment Equality Acts with regard to Civil Status.
Civil Status is defined in section 2(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended by the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights Obligation Act 2010.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines civil status as:
“being single, married, separated, divorced, widowed, in a civil partnership within the meaning of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 or being a former civil partner that has ended by death or been dissolved”.
And section 6 states:
“For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—
(a) 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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds’’) which—
(i) exists,
(ii) existed but no longer exists,
(iii) may exist in the future, or
(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,
(b) a person who is associated with another person—
(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and
(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.
(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds are—
(b) that they are of different civil status.”
This claim is based on the claimant’s allegation is that he was imputed with the civil status of being in a relationship with a co-worker and was treated differently than someone of a different civil status. However, the civil status ground does not include the category of a relationship and the complainant is therefore unable to show that he suffered discrimination on the grounds of civil status.
The Claimant does not meet the requirements as to civil status as set out in the Act and is therefore not in a position to progress a claim under that ground for discrimination.
____________________
Caroline McEnery
Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer