FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015 PARTIES : TUATH HOUSING ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY ADARE HRM) - AND - MS VIOLETA CUCOVIC DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00022645 CA-00029571-003. This is an appeal by Ms Violeta Cucovic (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00022645/CA-00029371-003, dated 8 September 2020) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’). The within appeal was heard by the Court together with two related appeals under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (CD/20/246). The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 15 September 2020. Factual Matrix Tuath Housing Association (‘the Respondent’) is a not-for-profit organisation and an approved voluntary housing association that provides housing for families and individuals, including those with special needs. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as an accounts assistant on a twelve-month fixed-term contract to provide cover for a permanent employee availing herself of protective leave. The Complainant’s employment commenced on 7 May 2019 and was terminated by the Respondent on 10 May 2019. Her contract of employment provided for a six-month probationary period. On the morning of 10 May 2019, the Complainant attended for work in the normal way. As part of the induction and probationary process, she was asked to attend a meeting with the Respondent’s Finance Operation Supervisor that morning. The latter requested the Complaint to come to a meeting room but the Complainant declined to do so, stating that she preferred to have the meeting conducted in the open plan area in which her desk was situated. When her Supervisor attempted to engage with the Complainant at her desk, the Complainant allegedly addressed her in a loud and inappropriate manner. It appears the Complainant was upset by the fact that the Respondent hadn’t returned a copy of her employment contract signed on behalf of the Respondent notwithstanding an undertaking given by the HR Manager that the signed copy would be with her that week. The Complainant had emailed the HR Manager earlier that morning to enquire as to when she would receive her finalised contract. A meeting did subsequently take place a little later that morning in the canteen. The Finance Operation Supervisor was accompanied by her line manager – the Finance Manager – as the former had concerns following her earlier encounter with the Complainant. It appears that the Complainant was very focused on receiving her contract at that meeting and became vocal and agitated about this matter notwithstanding the Finance Manager’s assurance that the signed contract would be available the following Monday. The Complainant returned to her desk but was asked a short time later to attend a further meeting in the canteen. At this meeting she was informed that a decision had been taken by the Respondent’s Deputy Chief Executive to terminate her employment with immediate effect. The Complainant was asked to gather her belongings and to leave the building without delay. When she initially declined to do so, the Respondent suggested that they would call An Garda S?ochána if necessary. The Complainant, in fact, did so herself, using her own mobile phone, before leaving the office. A Garda called to the Respondent’s premises some hours later. Equality Complaint The Complaint alleges that she has been discriminated against by the Respondent on grounds of gender, civil status, age, race and religion. When asked by the Court to explain the basis for her allegations in this regard, the Complaint failed to give as much as a single example of discriminatory action by the Respondent on any one of the grounds she has cited in her complaint. It is well established that the initial burden of proof in a complaint under the 1998 Act rests on the Complainant. The Complainant must demonstrate the existence of facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn before the burden shifts to the Respondent. No prima facie case of discrimination has been established in this appeal. It follows that the appeal must fail. The Court, therefore, affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer and dismisses the appeal. The Court so determines.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
