THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
An Binse Comhionannais
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-086
PARTIES
Ms Flavia Leandro Botaro
AND
ISS Facility Services Ltd
(Represented by IBEC)
File reference: EE/2013/373
Date of issue: 18 September 2015
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts Sections 6 and 8 – Conditions of Employment-Family Status – Discrimination.
1 DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Flavia Leandro Botaro that she was discriminated against by the company on the grounds of family status in that they failed to accommodate her needs for shifts that facilitated her child minding requirements 6 (2) of the Employment Equality Acts in relation to discriminatory dismissal in terms of sections 8 of the Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 26 July 2013 under the Employment Equality Acts. June 3rd, 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, 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 which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides and in accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on June 12h 2015.
2 COMPLAINANTS' SUBMISSION
2.1 The complainant started work for the respondent on 4th November 2011 and left of her own volition on May 11th 2012. She re-commenced employment on February 4th 2013 on a fixed term contract which expired on May 31st, 2013 and which was renewed with effect from June 6th 2013 to August 8th 2013. However, following a dispute about the terms of that employment at a meeting on June 17th Ms Botaro resigned from her employment several days later.
3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The respondent states that the complainant has failed to identify a comparator and has no prima facie case.
3.2 The respondent also says that the company has a seventy per cent female workforce and the provision of flexibility for child minding purposes is well established in its practise. It says that the issue with the claimant was her insistence on a specific allocation of hours which it could not accommodate due to the needs of its client; a university, and her requirement that this be implemented immediately. However it says that it made it clear to the complainant that it was willing to both increase her hours and seek to meet her specific needs in due course.
3.3 It also points out that it sought to dissuade the Complainant from leaving her employment.
4 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 I have to decide if the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of family status. 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.
4.2 There were some conflicts in the evidence in relation to an incident on May 27th 2012 regarding Ms Botaro’s authorisation to leave early to collect her child. I am satisfied that this was a misunderstanding between the parties which should have been more readily resolved.
4.3 I accept the company’s evidence that the second contract (to run from June 1st 2013) was not the last word on what hours the claimant would have been offered and it is regrettable that she resigned two days after this meeting.
4.4 I note that no comparator was offered by the complainant, and I find that in general the company seems to have a positive attitude to accommodating family needs.
5. DECISION
5.1 I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that:
· There was no discriminatory treatment in breach of the act and I dismiss the claim.
____________________
Pat Brady
Equality Officer
18 September 2015