ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029064
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jowita Szymanska | Bidvest Noonan (ROI) Ltd |
Representatives | SIPTU | IBEC |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00038653-002 | 10/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/10/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 10th July 2020, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Employment Equality Act. The complaint of discrimination was heard at adjudication on the 12th October 2021. The complainant attended and was represented by Ciara Galvin, SIPTU. The respondent was represented by Mary-Jane Andrews, IBEC and the following witnesses attended: Niall Loughran, John McDonnell, David Casey and Ryan Ward. The hearing was held remotely.
In accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2021following 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:
This is a claim of discrimination in respect of hours allocated on a Sunday. The respondent denies the claim of gender discrimination. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is a cleaner and works at a university hospital. Her employment commenced in 2010 and she transferred to the respondent in 2015. In her shift cycle, she works Monday to Friday on week 1 and, in addition, the Sunday, on week 2. The issue in dispute relates to her hours on the Sunday in week 2. The complainant outlined that she is only assigned four hours of work on a Sunday. Her normal shift is six hours. The person who does the alternate Sunday shift is allocated six hours on his Sunday. This comparator is a male. On affirmation, the complainant said that she could not clean all the rooms in four hours and had to attend to them the following day. In cross-examination, the complainant said that she was offered the additional hours but at the ERO rate of pay and not her rate of pay (€22.40/hour). The complainant said that the issue with the remaining rooms being left uncleaned had improved since she brought this complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent outlined that the comparator stated by the complainant and another colleague were paid the ERO rate, and not the higher, contractual rate paid to the complainant. It outlined that all rooms were cleaned every day and rooms were not left uncleaned, per their key performance indicators. It submitted that it was honouring the complainant’s terms and conditions and it was uneconomical to pay her for six hours on a Sunday. The respondent denied the complaint of discrimination. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a complaint of discrimination on grounds of gender. It relates to the allocation of hours to the complainant on a Sunday. It is not in dispute that she is assigned four hours at her rate of pay, while the person on the alternate shift pattern, a male, is assigned six hours, albeit paid at the lower, ERO rate of pay. The question here is whether there is a fact of such significance that raises an inference of discrimination. I accept that the person on the other side of the shift pattern is male and is allocated six hours on a Sunday, while the complainant is only assigned four. It is not in dispute that the complainant is paid more on a four-hour shift than the comparator is paid on his six-hour shift. The allocation of hours is not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of rates of pay. I accept the respondent’s evidence that it does not try to shoehorn six hours of work in the complainant’s allocation of four hours. Outstanding work on a Sunday is covered by other operatives, although I note the complainant’s evidence that this situation improved following the submission of this complaint. I, therefore, find that the assignment of four Sunday hours to the complainant was not discrimination on grounds of gender and nor was she required to do six hours of work in the four allocated. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2021 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00038653-002 I decide that the complainant was not discriminated against on grounds of gender. |
Dated: 4th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act / hours of work |