Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Print Company

Representatives

Barry Kenny Kenny Sullivan Solicitors

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-00012646-001

19/07/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00012646-002

19/07/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00012646-003

19/07/2017

There are 3 complaints before the Tribunal under the Acts cited above:

1.      A complaint pursuant to Section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015, that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the basis of her gender and race in failing to promote her or consider her for promotion.

2.      A complaint pursuant to section 18 of the Parental Leave Act, 1998, that the Respondent penalised the Complainant for proposing to exercise and/or having exercised her parental leave rights.

3.      A complaint pursuant to Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, that the Respondent constructively dismissed the Complainant.

The Complainant is seeking redress in respect of all of these complaints, in the form of compensation.

The complainant says that she commenced employment with the respondent on the 16th of May 2011 at which time she was in employed on a fixed term basis of three months as a quality assurance system administrator. She was subsequently employed on a full-time basis, on a salary of €19,266. The respondent at that time, gave her a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment and a list of the tasks involved.

The written contract included a grievance procedure, which stated:

“the purpose of this procedure is to enable employees to express any problems or concerns they may have, to have them resolved quickly and satisfactorily. The company has introduced this policy to ensure each employee is treated equally and fairly and that consistency can be exercised in the treatment of individual grievances. The guidelines contained in the code of practice on grievance and discipline issued by the Labour Relations Commission has been incorporated into this policy and procedure. Full details can be seen in the induction pack “

The complainant says that the respondent failed to furnish her with any separate, distinct or more thorough grievance procedure at any stage during her employment, whether in an induction pack or otherwise.

On the 16th of August 2011 the complainant‘s fixed term contract expired but she continued to work in the absence of a new are extended contract.

On the 3rd of January 2012 the complaint re-commenced employment with the respondent on a full-time basis, with a gross salary of €22,000 per annum. In appointing the complainant to the role the respondent praised her for her excellent work at the time in the context of the fact that the Quality Manager, who was the complainant‘s immediate supervisor, was on illness leave during an external audit. The complainant says that she managed all aspects of the audit herself and in doing so assumed the role of Quality Assurance Manager during that period.

She says that a letter she received on the 21st of December 2011 provided full functions and duties of the role stating that “during the course of your employment it may be necessary to expand your duties within the general scope of your position, or change your function”. The complainant maintains that, over time, the scope and functions of her role did indeed change and grow as she was assigned responsibilities for tasks, of managerial level.. She says that she performed exceptionally well during the course of her employment never being subject to any disciplinary complaint, investigation meeting or sanction and was commended frequently on having successfully passed her probation and annual review. Managerial tasks she performed were, for example, conducting external audits, and legal compliance and regulation together with administrative tasks such as, dealing with customer complaints and queries, internal document control training, managing returns, pest control, waste management, HACCP and calibration. In effect, she says she moved, over this period of time, as opportunities presented themselves, from being a purely administrative employee in the Quality department, to being the de facto Quality Assurance Manager.

She says that in 2013 she was requested to take over and manage compliance with NSAI food regulations section. This was a new and emerging area in the company. The company was at the time about to be audited by the NSAI in relation in a food material inspection and the Complainant was asked to assume management of this inspection.

The Complainant says that on the 15th July 2013, the respondent increased her annual salary to €24,843 per annum. The complainant maintains that this reflected the change in the scope and function of her role and the assignation by the respondent to the complainant of tasks and responsibilities of managerial level.

Just prior to this in 2011 the quality assurance manager then employed left the respondent company. The respondent addressed the situation by assigning the complainant to complete these managerial roles with the assistance of the then current manager who is the director of the respondent company. The complainant says that this was again a further opportunity to develop her managerial skills.

In January 2016 the Quality Manager relinquished all responsibility for quality matters in favour of a focus on sales matters within the organisation. The respondent again assigned the complainant to complete all the managerial roles without any further assistance from the Quality Manager.

The complainant maintains that she was now in fact the de facto Quality Manager reporting directly to the managing director alongside other company directors. She says that the Respondent reiterated his satisfaction with her performance and repeatedly stated that she was soon be appointed to the position of manager.

In April 2016 the complainant sought a review of her position and salary in light of the fact that she was now the de facto QA manager. She says that on April 4th 2016 she had a meeting with the managing director of the respondent company. They discussed her performance within the company and she pointed to the fact that she was, to all intents and purposes, carrying out a managerial role in the Quality Department. She detailed to the Respondent how this had come about and what she had been doing to reach this milestone in her career. She says she outlined other areas within her control where she intended to implement improvements. She says that the Respondent said he would review her role and salary and revert to her.

She says that the Respondent did revert to her, on the 18th April 2016 to advise her that he was prepared to increase her salary by 75 cents per hour, but to her disappointment, he did not address the anticipated change in her job title.

On June 3rd 2016, the Complainant says that she informed the Managing Director and other management colleagues of the fact of her pregnancy.

She says that the Managing Director (MD)asked her to meet with him in his office, wherein he advised her that:

He was not happy that the Complainant was pregnant,

That the Complainant should have advised him of this when they discussed her role aspirations and salary review and

That the Complainant was dishonest in this.

She further says that he said that had he been advised that she was pregnant that he would not have increased her wage.

She says also that he said to her that “having 2 children was very different to having one child” and that he hoped “her two men will help you handle your two kids”. She says that this was a reference to the fact that her two children would have different fathers.

She says that the MD concluded the meeting by telling her that she was dishonest and a liar.

The Complainant says that she said to the MD that her pregnancy was for 6 months and that she would be back to work to manage planned external audits. She says that his response was that 6 months was a long time for him, as her absence would be bad for the business as he had no one to cover her role.

She says that the respondent subsequently refused to pay her wages why she attended antenatal care. It was only when she produced documents in relation to this that he agreed to pay her for those necessary absences.

She says that from the date she announced her pregnancy that the atmosphere in the organisation change towards her. She says that she was isolated and made to feel that she had done something wrong. She says that this isolation was carried out by the MD and other directors of the company and she gives examples in this regard.

She says that she spoke to the MD about the training of replacements so that the role could be carried out in her absence on maternity leave. Subsequently four employees were identified for this purpose but there was no handover arranged with the complainant or training. She says the meeting   that she attended was purposefully conducted, by management in, highly stressful and adversarial manner.

On the 23rd of August 2016 the complainant was required to organize and attend a quality meeting with management. She says that she was ignored isolated and humiliated at these meetings. She says that when leaving this meeting she felt unwell and that ultimately she was rushed to hospital, went into labour gave birth to her son prematurely at 29 weeks. This required that her newborn son be kept in hospital for five weeks and therefore she was required to commence her maternity leave early.

She says that on the 6th of September 2016, 12 days following the birth of your son, on her maternity leave, the respondent contacted her and pressurised her to work from home due to there being no one on site to manage audits. She said she was placed under significant pressure to comply and ultimately agreed to work from home as she was concerned that the respondent my dismiss her she refused to do so. She says that this requirement to work from home meant working four hours per day for periods across the entire length of her maternity leave. She maintains that the respondent refused to pay but instead forwarded her a “loan” for work performed during the leave period. She says that this placed an incredible volume of upset, exhaustion and distress on her as she was required to perform this role while providing intensive levels of care for her significantly premature baby, requiring incubation, as well as caring for her three-year-old son.

She says that in April 2017 when she was on maternity leave, the respondent promoted another employee who, up to that time, had been in the role of quality controller, to the role of Quality Manager for all of the Quality Department.

She says that the Respondent failed or neglected to inform her that such a vacancy was being filled and failed to provide her with the opportunity to apply and be considered for the role. She says that she was distressed when she became aware of this, particularly given the fact that she had been the de facto manager managing the Quality Assurance role over the previous 6 years.

She says that she was denied the opportunity for promotion on the basis of gender and race. In particular she says that she should have and would have been put on notice of the fact that this vacancy was being filled, given the opportunity to apply for same and been considered for this promotion, by the respondent, had she not availed of maternity leave and been of Lithuanian nationality.

She continued to raise complaints with the Respondent (MD), who persisted in not addressing her complaints and indeed, ultimately handed the task of dealing with her complaints to the person recently promoted into the role that she claims she was denied opportunity to compete for.

On the 9th of May 2017 the complainant attended a meeting with the MD. At this meeting the MD produced an organisation chart which listed the complainant as the Quality Assurance System Administrator(QASA).

The complainant says that she again went through the details of the role she had come from originally to where she was now, which she says was at the level of QA manager. She says that on her observations of the person appointed to the overall quality role she had as much or more experience. She said that she responded to the MD saying that she was encouraged and promised that she would be promoted to the role but that she did not have an opportunity to compete for it and that that was discriminatory. She says that the respondent replied that he considered that the complainant was going into too much detail on the issue and the company was not big enough to facilitate such roles. She says that he said that he had “more important things to do”. She says that she was upset and distressed with the respondents response to her. She considered that the response had been entirely unfair and that the respondent failed to investigate the grievance that she had raised.

On the 9th of May 2017 the complainant says she was asked to attend a meeting with the operations director. This individual advised her that she would be required to report and be accountable to the recently appointed quality manager. She reiterated the level to which she was operating in the quality department and she sent the list of the duties she performed to this director, who subsequently advised her that she would be required to report and be accountable to the recently appointed quality assurance manager. She reiterated the level to which she was operating in the Quality Department and sent a list of the duties she performed to The Operations Director. He eventually reverted to her expressed his surprise that she was being seen as an administrative employee. She says that he recognised that she was in fact performing the role of a manager and had been for some time. She says that she saw this meeting as being the continuation of the grievance that she had raised the MD, who had clearly passed it now to the operations director.

The operations director agreed that she should be promoted, but under the management of the newly-appointed Quality Manager. He, subsequently, passed the issue for resolution of the grievance to this latter manager, whose role the Claimant believed, she had a right to compete for.

Despite the comments the Quality Manager responded by email to the Complainant stating:

             “ I have concluded that the position is not up for title change at this time and will remain as QASA. My decision is not for further negotiation now. However, I will review the request for job title change in January 2018 based on performance review.

The tasks and responsibilities that the company have assigned to this role shall remain unchanged“.

On the 26th of May 2017 complainant attended a further meeting with the MD and again dealt with the issues in relation to her inability to compete for the role and how she had performed the managerial aspects of the role of Quality Assurance Manager for some years. She says that the MD described this as nonsense and went on to say:

         “You certainly did not cover these roles when you were in maternity leave”.

The Complainant subsequently discovered a chain of emails that passed between senior managers that caused her to realize that she was the target of a concerted campaign by those managers that ensured that she would not have her grievance objectively and fairly considered.

My letter of the 2nd of June 2017 the complainant wrote to the MD resigning from her role and giving   two weeks notice. She believes that the respondent’s conduct was unreasonable to leave her with no option other than to resign her employment and that such unreasonable conduct also amounted to a repudiation of her contract of employment such that the complainant was entitled to treat the contract is terminated and herself dismissed.

She said that she was mocked by managers during the two week notice period by them saying: only four days to go, only two days to go etc..

She said, that by email dated the 14th June 2017, while still working through her notice, she advised the MD that she was very upset at the sequence of events and in this context had decided to resign her position, but on reflection did not want to resign and now wished to withdraw her notice.

The MD in response stated:

             “ this is a very difficult position to put us in as we have accepted your resignation. We have made plans that I would like to stick to. As you know I’m out of the office Thursday and Friday and I just need to discuss with with one of my senior managers who was on holidays until Monday. I am in the UK on Tuesday.

I cannot come back to you till later next week.

On review, you appear to not be happy since your return and maybe it’s for the best you keep looking for a job. I will come back to you next week all the same. I just see your request as a stop gap until you get another job and you will resign again as soon as you get a job. The company is not where your heart is. A stop gap measure will only delay our final solution”.

The complainant maintains that the respondent failed to give her plea any or adequate consideration.

She wrote to the respondent on the 15th of June saying:

           “You will be aware of the problems that I have relate to my job title and the fact that I do not feel that I have been treated fairly. I have met with you on a number of occasions but you have not addressed my concerns. Notwithstanding my unhappiness about my job title and the lack of opportunities I have been given for promotion, the decision to resign was made as a result of my frustration at not having my complaint dealt with. I still need work and I don’t think that any plans made or contemplated are confirmed and agreed,given the short period of time “.

She says that the Respondent advised that the company wished to change the scope of the role, adding Repak, HACCP and Health and Safety responsibilities to the role.

The Complainant believes that these changes to the role were not implemented and that, in fact, other employees were hired to manage these roles.

The Respondent says in relation to Complaint number CA –00012646 –001:

The company does not have a position for a quality assurance manager. They say that this arises from necessary restructuring.

They say that they are a very small company, with hands on management that works in the business day in, day out. They did not deny the opportunity for promotion to the complaint.

They say they are left with the impression that the complainant was frustrated over the appointment of another employee to the overall quality role. They say that this individual was appointed to the role on the basis of hands-on experience and technical knowledge in the use of ink and printing press usage. That the complainant does not have the required skills is confirmed by the training records. This is the skill base of the employee appointed to the role.

They say in relation to the claim of gender discrimination that many female employees were promoted into a variety of roles over the past number of years and that this demonstrates that the company does not discriminate on gender grounds.

In relation to the claim of discrimination on Race grounds, they say that the company has 48 people in its payroll, 21 of whom are non-national, many of whom have been promoted to various roles within the company. They say that the Complainant could have created further opportunities for promotion through further education. They say she did not engage in further education.

In relation to the Complainant statement that “my complaints were not being dealt with or taken seriously “they say that the complainant in all of the improvements she desired for herself was never prepared to compromise and of this caused the company to make the decisions that it felt it had to make. They do not understand how the complainant could have been “upset and disheartened “. They make the point that having just returned from 10.5 months maternity leave to a job that gave extra maternity leave without question, and a review weeks before she went on maternity leave the promise of a further review in January 2018

To say that following the complainant‘s resignation they had restructured her job to include other areas such as HACCP and health and safety. They say that they invited her to apply for a new position if she wished. They say that the complainant did not apply for the new role despite requested reinstatement and then register her   complaints with the WRC. They say it should be noted that she never made any complaint regarding race and/or gender discrimination at any time, and in particular there was no complaint with regards to promotion bias, gender and race being the reason for the complaint. They said that the gender/race complaint is at the centre of the instant complaint and that they were never given the opportunity to review and handle this as a complaint.

In response to CA - 00012646 - 002 the Respondent:

Quotes the Complainant: “When I informed my employer that I was pregnant I was accused of being dishonest. I was advised that had this information been given a month previously I would not have been given a small pay rise”.

The respondent said that he had spoken to the complainant on the 3rd June 2016 and congratulated her on the the expected baby. I pointed out that she had not presented me with the full facts when she asked me for a pay rise on the 4th April 2016.

He said she had presented a list of initiatives she had implemented and would implement through 2016.

He says that the Complainant knew at the time - the 4th April 2016 - that she was pregnant and would be taking Maternity Leave. He says she presented her request for a pay increase based on past performance and the expectation that this would continue into the future. Because she knew she was pregnant he says she could not deliver this and thus was dishonest in her presentation. He said that he expected to have a relationship based on honesty and that she had no only presented first picture to him.

He said that it has to be considered that the complainant‘s maternity leave was in fact a cost saving for the company at a time when the company was making a laugh something for the prospect of someone being taken off the books health at this difficult time the money was not the issue it was the honesty. He says therefore that he strongly refuted the statement made by the complainant that she was dreading that the pay rise given to her would be taken back. He says he had no intention of doing so.

He says that during the conversation on the 3rd of June 2016 with the complainant, that she offered to work during her maternity leave. She said she was not pressurized to work from home. He said that the company needed the work done and that the complainant persistently asked for work. He says that on the 5th of May 2016 the complainant asked to work during her maternity leave.

He said she was given the work because she said that she needed money and was bored hanging around you to check that the baby was in an incubator and she was alone.. She said she needed IT support to work from home and salary for the work done which was a arranged through payroll.

The emails back-and-forth continued through September and October 2016 and the relationship was not good. The complainant continue to do the work, write reports and expect people at work to provider her with data which she would collate and produce the reports.

She was requested to attend the full compliance with legislation audit on the 24th of January 2017 and did so, following a request from her for a one day change in the schedule.

They say that on the 2nd of March 2017 they received an email from the complainant advising that she was unable to work from home. In this correspondence she refers to her view that “the atmosphere changed”. They say that putting this in context, the company was at that time and asked making company, with all the pressures associated with that. The complainant‘s maternity news was just another HR matter that would need to be handled that you’re feeling upset and emotions were not intended, just a bunch of people working together in a highly charged Marco trying to make the company property. At the complainant come to him and outlined her feelings he would’ve done his best but you chose not to and kept your feelings to yourself.

He says that she wrote “I say that I did not get the opportunity to avail of the full period of my maternity leave and following my return to work was victimised by my employer”. He says that she was on Maternity leave for 10.5 months.

He also said that had the complainant come to him and outlined your feelings he would’ve done his best to help, but she says she chose not to and kept your feelings to herself.

The Respondent’s response to CA - 00012646 - 003:

They say that the Complainant presents, in her complaints, what is going on in her life. They say that she only refers s to the company as her employer.

The Respondent says that, however it is a family company established by the MD, 42 years ago. It had grown to employ 98 people, supplying plastic wrapping to companies in the food sector. He says that the sector became very competitive and since 2007 this had resulted in.a contraction in the business to where it now employs 48 staff.

He says that “the opportunity to advance” as put by the Complainant, is not realistic. He says that in the current climate in the company there is no known ladder of advancement at the company, “just an ability to fill the job which is usually based on fire fighting.

They said that the Complainant made many comments, had meetings and wrote emails all about her job title. The complainant pointed out that this was important to her she needed it for her CV. She never made the point that she was the manager just that “I took over the quality assurance manager role a few years ago “

At a meeting that was arranged for the Complainant with the Operations Director she asked, that she be appointed to the role of Quality Assurance Manager and that the company would look at the level of pay commensurate with the role level. This meeting was held on the 24th May 2017. They say that she had received a pay increase on the 4th June 2016 of 6% to take account of her new duties.

They said that their side disagreed with the complainant‘s comment “I was victimised for having a baby and taking maternity leave “. The respondent said that, coming from a large family himself he would never victimise an employee for having a baby.

They say that the reference to victimisation hinges on opportunity to advancement for a job that the complainant is not qualified for. Though there are similarities in the job name, they are, in fact, very different. He says that the Complainant knows this.

They say that the complainant wrote a letter of resignation on the 2nd of June 2017 and finished on the 16th of June 2017

They say that they expected the letter of resignation on the 2nd of June 2017.

They say that the complainant, by letter, wished to retract her resignation on the 14th of June 2017.

Say that on the 15th of June she emailed the company about her returning to work.

The respondent says that due to holidays and a day off not everyone was available for consultation on the return to work request and that ”we had time to reflect”. We do not take this process lightly and having discussed the role, duties and additional work required, we decided to write a new job specification and we asked the complainant to apply but she did not.

I said we were surprised that she did not reply. Why the complainant wanted your job back and you did not apply for the new job is very surprising, considering it was an opportunity to renegotiate your contract terms. The job link was passed to her and we do not know whether she reviewed the job or not. She has not asked for a reference

The complainant refers to complaints not having been dealt with. The only complaint they say that she made about your job title and this was dealt with in two meetings and with emails.The conclusion was arrived that, albeit not the conclusion that the complainant wanted..

They say that when the complainant resigned she knew what she was doing. She was resigning as a right. If there were other reasons the Complainant should have made them known to the Respondent, to give them an opportunity to respond to those complaints. They say that they were not aware of any grievance made known to them to them prior to the complainant‘s resignation apart from those that are already concluded. Other grievances regarding race gender maternity leave opportunity promotion this I have never been formally highlighted to them.

they say that the complainant did not invoke the grievance procedure and the respondent says they reject her claims.

In complaint number CA - 0011646 - 001 the complainant says that she was denied the opportunity for promotion on the basis of her gender and race. The respondent has rejected this and says that she was not denied the “opportunity for promotion “.

Making her claim under these headings the complainant compares herself to the male individual who was promoted during her absence on maternity leave and says that he was “treated differently, in a more favourable manner and the fact that he was notified of a promotional opportunity, was entitled to apply for same, was considered for same and was ultimately offered a managerial position. This was the basis for the complainant’s claim of discrimination being on the basis of her race and gender.

The respondent rejects the claims of discrimination under both headings. Specifically in relation to the race heading he says that 21 staff of a total workforce of 48 are non-national and that many of this group have been promoted over the years.

In relation to the claim for discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy/gender, the complainant says that section 4(b) of the Equality Act 2004 provides that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy “without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), discrimination on the gender ground shall be taken to occur where, on the ground related to her pregnancy or maternity leave, a woman employee is treated, contrary to any statutory requirement, less favourably than another employee Is, has or would be treated.”

The Complainant says she was excluded from a promotion by not being advised that the promotional role was available, while she was on maternity leave.

The Complainant further says that the Respondent advised her that he would not have given to her the pay increase that he did give, if he had known that she was going on maternity leave.

The Complainant says that she was not paid wages while attending ante-natal appointments, until she produced the relevant legislation to the Respondent.

The Respondent says that the pay increase was given for recent past work, but also for future execution of planned work. He said his comment on the pay rise was based on his belief that the planned work would not be completed because of the Complainant’s absence on Maternity Leave.

Finally the Complainant cited the case of;

         Byrne v. Minister for Defence [2017] IEHC 453, ‘where the High Court found for the Applicant, determining that the Respondent had subjected her to unlawful discrimination by excluding her from the promotion process while on maternity leave’.

Complaint CA - 00012646- 002:

Many of the arguments advanced by the Complainant in advancing CA - 00012746 - 001 are relevant to this complaint and I will take them into account when issuing my decision.

Complaint CA - 0012646 - 003:

Constructive dismissal is defined in the Unfair Dismissal’s Act, 1977 as “the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was ordered and titled, or it was our would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer “.

The Complainant cited the case of

           A Worker (Mr O) v. An Employer [2005] ELR 132, where the Labour Court observed that the dismissal under the Equality legislation was similar to that under the 1977 Act, in relation to the concept of constructive dismissal. This review was applied in the case of Stone v Maloney & Sons Limited, DECE 2010 - 196. The Equality Officer states:

‘The Labour Court, in the case of A Worker v An Employer [2005] ELR 132, has addressed the issue of constructive dismissal under the acts comprehensively. It has set out the main applicable tests, these being the “contract “test and the “reasonableness “test, and held that these tests may be used either in combination or in the alternative. I find that in the case in hand, the reasonable test is the relevant one. This test assesses whether the employer conducts its affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. What can be regarded as reasonable or unreasonable and depends on the circumstances of each case. However, it is an important element of the reasonableness test that the employer has an opportunity to address an employee’s grievance or complaint. ……….. I am further satisfied that by the time of the complainant’s resignation, the respondent was fully aware of her grievances, yet only persisted with his unlawful conduct, but, as found above, had also started to victimise the complainant. It therefore cannot be said that he addressed her complaint in a meaningful or satisfactory manner, and that therefore his entire conduct towards the complainant must be regarded as so unreasonable that it would have been unfair to expect the complainant to continue to put up with it.”

In the instant case the Complainant maintains that the Respondent acted so unreasonably as to destroy the Complainant’s trust in the Respondent, leaving her with no option but to resign from her employment.

I note her issues of unreasonableness:

(a)not dealing with her claim for payment for ante-natal appointments,

(b)Not investigating her complaints regarding access to the promotion process,

(c)Allowing what investigation there was into her complaints to be passed along to other managers, some of whom came up with more favourable decisions for the Complainant, but who clearly could not implement them, and finally

(d)Leaving the final decision on her complaint to the individual recently promoted into the position she had been prevented from applying for.

CA - 00012646 - 001 and 002, I find for the Complainant and I award her a total of €10,000 in respect of the discrimination on gender grounds and in respect of her Complaint of Penalisation.

I do not find in favour of the Complainant in her complaint for discrimination on the grounds of race.

CA - 00012646 - 003, I find for the Complainant and award her €10,000.