ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008614
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | An Employee | A Facilities Company |
Representatives | Eric Gleeson Eric Gleeson & Co Solicitors | Ronnie Lawless IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00011267-001 | 11/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 9 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015 and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Respondent is a facilities company providing specialised facility services into the Life Sciences Sector. In July 2016 one of the Respondent’s clients advised that, due to cost cutting, they were reducing the level of services required from the Respondent by 50%. The Respondent responded to this reduction in their business by releasing five temporary employees and reducing the hours of the other employees by 9 hours each. The Respondent met with each employee on an individual basis to explain the new structure of working hours. In addition, the Respondent informed each employee that where extra hours were requested by the client they would be advised by text and the work would be allocated on a first-come first- served basis. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s complaint revolved around her contention that she did not receive offers of any “covers hours” while her colleagues appeared to be getting all the hours on offer. The Complainant contended that, in the eight month period following the reduction of hours, she only received offers of “cover hours” on two occasions. The Complainant made her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2015. She claimed discrimination on the grounds of Civil Status on the basis that the Respondent had unlawfully discriminated against her in getting a job. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted that the reduction of hours was purely and simply a business decision. This decision affected not only the Complainant but all other staff on the site in question. Consequently, the Respondent contended that there was no discrimination of any kind in its treatment of the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the commencement of the Hearing, the representative for the Complainant submitted that there was no discrimination on the grounds of Civil Status or any of the discriminatory grounds contained in the legislation. It was acknowledged that the complaint had not been submitted under the correct legislation. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Based on the submission made on behalf of the Complainant, as set out above, I have no option but to reject the complaint. |
Dated: 12th September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words: