Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pauline  Butler

Mcloughlin & Sons Hardware Limited C/o Mcloughlins Trading Company

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Francis Drumm, B.L. instructed by   Collier Law Solicitors

Matthew Jolley, B.L.  instructed by  Bowler Geraghty & Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00040392-002

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00040392-004

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00040392-005

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00040392-006

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00040392-007

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00040392-009

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00040392-010

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00040392-011

13/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00041484-001

09/12/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave evidence under oath.  Both parties were offered and availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

During the hearing the following complainants were withdrawn; CA-00040392-004; CA-00040392-005; CA-00040392-006; CA-00040392-007;  CA-00040392-010; & CA-00040392-011

CA-00040392-002 Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The complainant submitted that she did not receive a reply to her request under Section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act.

CA-00040392-009 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Age Ground

The complainant submitted that she did not want to retire at age 65. The complainant submitted that staff younger than her were offered redundancy packages and that she was not.

CA-00041484-001 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Gender Ground

The complainant submitted that other male employees did not have to retire upon reaching 65 years of age whereas she was required to do so.

CA-00040392-002 Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The respondent denied the claim that it breached the Minimum Wage Act.

CA-00040392-009 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Age Ground

The respondent denied that discriminated against the complainant on the Age ground.  The respondent submitted that it has maintained a consistent approach in that the retirement age was 65 for all employees.  The respondent submitted that when the complainant raised the issue of staying on after that date, it attempted to facilitate her but that the complainant repeatedly refused to engage with it in this regard.

CA-00041484-001 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Gender Ground

The respondent denied that it required female staff to retire at 65 but allowed male staff to stay on to a later age.  The respondent submitted that it has maintained a consistent approach in that the retirement age was 65 for all employees.  The respondent submitted that when the complainant raised the issue of staying on after that date, it attempted to facilitate her but that the complainant repeatedly refused to engage with it in this regard.

CA-00040392-002 Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The complainant sought a statement under Section 23 of the Minimum Wage Act.  Having considered all the written and oral evidence I am not satisfied that such a statement was provided to the complainant.  Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded.

CA-00040392-009 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Age Ground

The complainant had indicated to the respondent that she wished to retire but had also indicated to the employer that she wished to stay on after her 65th birthday.  Following layoff (as provided for by the appropriate pandemic regulations) the complainant failed to return to work and failed to engage with the respondent regarding possible options for a return to work.  The respondent indicated that if she chose to retire it would continue to pay her up to the September date of her retirement.  The respondent indicated that if she wished to remain in employment, she would be required to return to the workplace to take up duties.  The complainant did not engage with the respondent and failed to return to work following layoff.  She provided no reason as to why she chose to follow this route save that this course of action was advised to her.

Section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Act states as follows:

Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of the complainant, I am not satisfied that the submissions put forward by the complainant are of sufficient weight or detail to establish a prima facie case and therefore switch the burden of proof to the respondent.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against.

CA-00041484-001 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Gender Ground

The complainant suggested that male staff of the respondent were able to remain on beyond the retirement age while female staff were not permitted to do so.  This contention was not supported by facts, or a level of detail, that would lead me to conclude the existence of discrimination.

Section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Act states as follows:

Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of the complainant, I am not satisfied that the evidence put forward by the complainant establishes facts from which a prima facie case could be inferred and therefore switch the burden of proof to the respondent.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against.

CA-00040392-002 Minimum Wage Act, 2000

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that this complaint is well founded, and I require the employer to provide such a statement to the complainant.

CA-00040392-009 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Age Ground

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

CA-00041484-001 Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2021 Gender Ground

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Minimum Wage request – employer directed to respond – Employment Equality Acts – prima facia case – no discrimination.