The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-091
PARTIES
CHLOE CALLAGHAN
AND
M&L TRAVERS T/A NEWS 4 U
(John Barry – MSS)
File reference: EE/2014/386
Date of issue: 23September2015
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts, Discrimination, Family Status.
1 DISPUTE
i. The complainant alleges that the respondent dismissed her from her employment following her disclosure that she was pregnant and such dismissal amounted to discrimination on grounds of family status.
ii. The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 21st July, 2014 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 9th September, 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Niamh O’ Carroll Kelly, 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 15th September, 2015.
2 COMPLAINANTS' SUBMISSION
i. The complainant commenced work with the respondent in or around 7th May, 2014. She was employed as a shop assistant. The respondent required the complainant to attend her place of work, at her convenience, to facilitate training sessions. She was also about to sit her leaving certificate in June so the respondent agreed to work around her schedule until she completed her exams.
ii. Shortly after the complainant started working shifts on her own an issue arose in relation to the use of the toilet. The facilities were outside the shop premises but were in the shopping centre where the respondents shop is located. In order to use the facilities the complainant would have to lock up the shop and place a note on the door. Initially, there was no issue with her use of the facilities, however, immediately following her disclosure that she was pregnant the respondent, and in particular Louise Travers attitude towards her changed. She was no longer allowed to lock up the shop to use the facilities. She had to call the respondents and request them to come down to mind the shop while she was gone. On one occasion when she called, nobody answered her call.
iii. On another occasions after she had left the Air conditioning unity running all night the respondent removed the remote control from the shop leaving the complainant to work in very hot conditions.
iv. The complainant stated that Louise Travers bullied and harassed her and repeatedly asked her if she was up for job after she found out she was pregnant.
v. On the 30th June the respondent told the complainant she was letting her go for Health & Safety reasons.
3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
i. The complainant was due to start her training on the 7th May, 2014. She text to say she would be late as she had to collect her sister from school. The respondent took no issue with that.
ii. On the next training day, the 13th May, 2014 the complainant text to say she had to leave school early due to ill health ( back pain) and wouldn’t be in.
iii. The complainant was official placed on the roster on the 10th June, 2014. She was required to work shifts lasting no longer than 4.5 hours. She was required to work those shifts on her own.
iv. The respondent was aware that the complainant had a back problem and as a result of that requested that she not carry large bundles of newspapers but instead she should break them up into smaller, less heavy bundles. The complainant did this.
v. The use of the facilities did not become a problem until sometime between the 10th and 18th June. There was a particular issue with the lotto. The respondent has a contract with the lotto and pursuant to the terms of that contract is required to have the shop open during lotto playing hours.
vi. On the 18th June the respondent received a call from a friend at 6.25pm asking why the shop was closed and stating that he wished to do the lotto. The respondent told the complainant that it would be better to call one of them to cover her whilst she was away from the shop in future.
vii. On another occasion the respondent observed the complainant doing arts and craft at the cash register whilst ignoring a customer for several minutes. She also observed her reading the newspaper whilst customers were in the shop.
viii.When the complainant came to work on the 22nd the respondent had a chat with her and told her she would have to make more of an effort. The complainant began crying and said that she was pregnant.
ix. The respondent didn’t see the complainant from the 22nd – 27th June as she was away. On her return Rachel, the other employee, made a complaint about the complainant stating that she was not pulling her weight and she was carrying out a lot of her duties. Several other customers made negative comments about the complainant’s attitude.
x. On the 27th June the respondent went down to talk to the complainant. She informed her that things would have to improve. She was also informed by text that the shutters would have to remain open until 7.30 so that people could come in to do the lotto. The papers should only be left out after 7.30.
xi. On the 30th June, the complainant arrived to work with ‘an attitude’. The respondent called down to the shop at 7.20pm (The complainant states it was 7.28pm) the shutters were down and the papers were already placed in the return bin outside the centre. This is contested by the complainant.
xii. The respondent was annoyed as this meant that whilst the complainant was out placing the papers in the return bin the shop was left empty. That is a very serious security issue. The respondent told the complainant to go home that she would lock up.
xiii.The complainant left and on the 2nd July text the respondent for her P45.
4. Discrimination on the grounds of Family Status.
Section 6 (1) states:
“For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.
(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—(c) that one has family status and the other does not (in this Act referred to as “the family status ground”),”
Section 2 defines family status as responsibility:
(a) as a parent or as a person in loco parentis in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, or
(b) as a parent or the resident primary carer in relation to a person of or over that age with a disability which is of such a nature as to give rise to the need for care or support on a continuing, regular or frequent basis,
i. The complainant failed to call any evidence which could be construed in light of the requirements set down by section 2 and Section 6 of the act. Whilst the complainant had grievances about how she feels she was treated by the respondent, those grievances do not bring her claim within the scope of the Act.
5. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 I have to decide if the complainant was the subject of discrimination pursuant to Section 6 (2) (c) of the Act. In reaching a 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.
5.2 I am satisfied that the claim lodged by the complainant does not come within the scope of the act and that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s complaint that she was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of family status.
5.3 The complainant has failed to establish a prima facia case of Discrimination, pursuant to Section 6 (2)(c) of the Act.
5 DECISION
6.1. I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that:
· The complainant failed to establish a prima facia case of discrimination.
· The complaint fails.
_____________________________
Niamh O’ Carroll Kelly BL
Equality Officer
23 September, 2015.