Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Grade iv

Hospital

Representatives

Peter Flood Ibec

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-00020941-001

01/08/2018

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent since October 2006. She is paid €4413.30 gross per month and she works 37 hours a week. The Complainant was on Maternity Leave from 13/3/2017 until 15/9/2017. She was on Sick Leave from 18/9/2017 until 4/3/2018 and she was on annual leave from 5/3/20218 until 8/4/2018.

The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st August 2018 alleging as follows – “An employment agreement contains a provision which is discriminatory “ under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. This relates to advertisements for Vacancies which the Complainant alleged arose while she was on Maternity Leave. Copies were supplied of these as follows – (1) Closing Date was 26th October 2017 which is post the ending of her Maternity Leave (2) Closing date 1st December 2017 which is post her Maternity Leave (3) closing date 25th January 2018, which is post her Maternity Leave and (4) closing date 23rd February 2018 post her Maternity Leave.

A Preliminary issue arises in relation to this complaint as the complaint referred to the WRC refers to “an employment agreement contains a provision which is discriminatory”. The Complainant does not cite which employment agreement is discriminatory and neither does she name the Parties to this employment agreement.

Section 86 of the Act refers to Collective Agreements.

I note that the provisions of this section were addressed by the Labour Court in its Decision Department of Finance v Collins and the Court clearly stated that it was for the Complainant to identify the agreement they wish to have investigated and to establish in a prima facie way the basis on which they contend that it is discriminatory. Likewise in a Decision of the Equality Tribunal Byrne v Diageo DEC-E2012-048 in which the Equality Officer held that she did not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint because the relevant parties to the agreement (in that case the Trade Union) had not been cited as Respondents.

In accordance with Section 79 of the Act I declare this complaint is not well founded as the Complainant has failed to identify the employment agreement and the provision of the agreement which she contends discriminated against her.

Employment Equality Act, 1998 – 2015 – complaint relates to employment agreement -the agreement not identified and neither were the parties to this agreement identified other than the named Respondent – Section 86 refers – not well founded as the employment agreement and the parties to this agreement not identified.