EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-149
PARTIES
Lisa O’ Neill
v
Arcourt Ltd. t/a Sheldon Park Hotel
(Represented by O’Brien, Dunne Solicitors)
File reference: et-157720-ee-15
Date of issue: 8 November, 2016
1. CLAIM
This dispute involves a claim by Ms. Lisa O’ Neill (hereafter “the complainant”) that she was discriminated against by the respondent in respect of her conditions of employment on grounds of civil status in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts and contrary to section 8 of those Acts.
1.1 The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 6 July 2015. In accordance with his powers under the Acts the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the complaint to me - Valerie Murtagh, an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer on 15 June 2016, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part VII of the Employment Equality Acts. As required by section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 10 October, 2016. This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83(3) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.
2. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S CASE
2.1 The complainant was employed as a receptionist with the respondent. She states that she was informed at interview that her pay would be increased to €9.50 per hour after four weeks employment. She was initially paid €9 per hour and this was increased after 4 weeks to €9.25 per hour. The complainant states that her pay should have been increased to €9.50 after the initial four weeks as other receptionist staff were paid €9.50 per hour. She alleges that she was discriminated against on grounds of civil status in relation to not receiving the same terms and conditions as that of her colleagues.
3. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S CASE
3.1 The respondent disputes the claim made by the complainant under the employment equality legislation and submits that the complainant has already taken a number of claims to the WRC in relation to Payments of Wages Act, Organisation of Working Time Act, Terms of Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act and these matters have been adjudicated upon. The respondent states that the complainant was paid €9 per hour in line with her terms and conditions and this increased to €9.25 per hour after four weeks. The respondent submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to discrimination on grounds of civil status and maintains that her claim does not come within the scope of the Employment Equality Acts.
4. CONCLUSIONS OF EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 The issue for decision by me is whether or not the respondent (i) discriminated against the complainant on grounds of civil status, in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts and contrary to section 8 of those Acts, in relation to her conditions of employment. 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. Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination. If she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the respondent to prove the contrary. The Labour Court elaborated on the interpretation of section 85A in Melbury v. Valpeters EDA/0917 where it stated that section 85A: "places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule". Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where “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)…..” Section 6(2) of the Acts refers to the civil status ground. Civil status is defined as follows; “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 formal civil partner in a civil partnership that has ended by death or been dissolved". For a complaint of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts to be made out, the complainant must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged discriminatory treatment and her civil status.
4.2 At the hearing, the complainant stated that she did not know why she was not been paid €9.50 per hour and when she was completing the complaint form, she ticked the box for civil status. She also submitted that it may be a case of favouritism on behalf of the respondent. During the course of the hearing, the complainant was unable to link the alleged treatment in any way to the civil status ground. Hence, I am satisfied that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the civil status ground and therefore her complaint fails.
5. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 Having investigated the above complaint, I hereby make the following decision in accordance with section 79(3A) of the Employment Equality Acts. I find that
(i) the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the civil status ground pursuant to section 6(2) of the Acts and contrary to the provisions of section 8 of the Acts in relation to her conditions of employment.
.
_____________________
Valerie Murtagh
Adjudication Officer
8 November, 2016