Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elena Valentina  Sadagurschi

Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Limited

Representatives

Lars Asmussen B.L., instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co.

Orla Murphy B.L. instructed by Emma Dunne of Arthur Cox LLP

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-00043073-001

15/03/2021

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

CA-00043465-001

08/04/2021

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

CA-00043644-001

18/04/2021

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

CA-00043645-001

18/04/2021

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

CA-00043738-001

25/04/2021

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

CA-00043739-001

25/04/2021

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

CA-00044038-001

13/05/2021

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 25 March 2019 and resigned, with immediate effect, on 2 August 2021. She has made a number of claims under the Employment Equality Acts.

The complainant submits she started working for the respondent as a management trainee in Romania in September 2015 and worked there until July 2018 when she moved to another company. In March 2019 she moved to Ireland and commenced employment with the respondent as a Business Planning Analyst at a salary of €47,000, increasing to €50,000 on passing her remaining four financial exams.

Promotion: CA-00043465-001, CA-00043738-001 & CA-00043739-001: the complainant made three complaints that she was discriminated against on the grounds of race in relation to promotion. They were submitted on 08/04/2021 and 25/04/2021.

The complainant submits that from 1 August 2019 she worked as FP&A Manager on secondment for nine months. Her manager’s rating during this period was “Ahead”, above what is normally expected. In November/December 2019 the CFO introduced her to someone in another Department as the FPA Manager until (someone) comes back. This showed to her that the job was already “promised”. On 20 April 2020 (someone) introduced herself as the FPA Manager; this was announced by HR a few hours later. The complainant was upset because she did not get an opportunity to apply for the post. The complainant submits she did not challenge this at the time because she would upset some of the senior finance staff and this would affect her future chances. Whilst she received a stepping up allowance the incoming person received a permanent salary increase. She contends this show how the respondent racially discriminates against non-Irish employees.

Also, the position should have been advertised again in December 2020 when a further secondment ended but it was not. The complainant says this negatively affects her future career prospects 

The complainant submits that following a career discussion with her Manager in June 2020, he offered her a role with a 50/50 split between projects and ad hoc requests. Then the Financial Controller said she was a good fit for the role of BSO Alliance Manager if she wanted to apply, but this role was given to someone else before she had time to make up her mind. A few months in the other role it became clear that she was not going to be given the project work and the visibility that went with working on projects. In the six months working in the role (September 2020 to February 2021) she only worked on one project for a few days. Furthermore, she was excluded from regular 1:1s with her manager and team meetings, while an Irish colleague in a similar position was included in all team meetings and had regular 1:1s.

The complainant submits she was deliberately misled by her Manager to apply for role in his team in order she did apply for the role as BSO Alliance Manager, in order that that role could be given to an Irish employee. She contends this amounts to racial discrimination.

The complainant submits that in September 2020 she spoke to Dragos Ion, Regional CFO, and expressed how disappointed and sad she was regarding her treatment by her Manager. She had become aware of two further FPA Manager roles in the Czech Republic and Austria which had not been properly advertised and for which she had not been given an opportunity to apply. Mr Ion told the complainant she could not have joined the team in the Czech Republic as there were already too many Romanians there.

Conditions of Employment: CA-00043644-001 & CA-00043645-001 – submitted on 18/04/2021: the complainant submits that when working as a Commercial Financial Analyst she had a notice period of 12 weeks, whilst an Irish colleague with the same job title had a notice period of 4 weeks. She found this out on 15 March 2021 when she asked the Irish colleague about her notice period. She named two other Irish employees who also had only 4 weeks notice period.

When the complainant joined the Commercial Finance Team in September 2020 she was not invited to attend a weekly Commerce Finance Team meeting, whereas an Irish colleague was invited to the weekly meetings. Also, she did not have weekly formal 1:1 meetings with her manager, as he did with his direct reports. The complainant submits this treatment amounts to direct discrimination on the grounds of race.

Equal Pay: CA-00043073 – submitted on 15 March 2021: having previously worked for the respondent in Romania the complainant submits she moved to Dublin in March 2019 to work for them as a Financial Planning Analyst, at a salary of €47,000. In August 2019 she stepped up to the position of Financial Planning & Analysis (FPA) Manager for 8 months to cover maternity leave; she received an extra €250 per month for this acting up period. As this was a senior position the complainant asked for more money and was told there were companywide cost cuts.

The named comparator reported to the complainant during this period and joined the complainant’s team as a Commercial Financial Analyst and had less previous experience than the complainant.

In April 2020 the complainant received the bonus letter of her 2 direct reports and saw that the comparator had a salary of €60,000 and had 2 salary increases in 2019. The complainant complained to her Senior Manager about the salary discrepancy but was told nothing could be done until she moved to another position.

At this stage neither the complainant or the comparator were fully qualified accountants.

In May 2020 the complainant went back to her position of Financial Planning Analyst, working alongside her comparator at the same salary of €50,000, until she changed to Commercial Finance Analyst on 21 September 2020 at a salary of €57,000.

The complainant submits she was doing the same or more responsible work as the named comparator and this amounts to discrimination on the grounds of race. 

Victimisation: CA-00044038-001 – submitted on 13/05/2021: the complainant submits she raised a grievance on 25 March 2021 in which she alleges discrimination on the grounds of race and raises the unequal pay issue. Between March and April she referred her complainants to the WRC. She further raised her grievances by letter dated 12 April 2021 in which she claimed she had been racially discriminated.

Shortly after she returned to work on 6 April 2021, following a period of stress related sick leave, the complainant submits she began to be subjected to isolation, bullying, intimidation and retaliatory conduct by the respondent’s management. Notably, her direct manager stopped communicating with her and colleagues stopped interacting with her.

On 5 May 2021 the Employee Relations Manager wrote to the complainant in relation to confidentiality issues around the information given in her Grievance and WRC complaints. She submits this was an attempt to pressurise her into withdrawing her WRC complaints. The respondent did offer the possibility of trying to resolve issues through private mediation but she was only given two days to respond to the proposal.

Also, in May the complainant was not allowed to work from her home in Romania, even though others were allowed to work from home, including one colleague who worked from Northern Ireland.

By email to the HR Director on 25 May 2021 the complainant raised a further grievance in relation to how her complaints had been handled by the respondent and how she had been victimised. The HR Director proposed they meet in the park to discuss these grievances; the complainant declined.

By email dated 24 June 2021 the complainant wrote to the CEO, CFO and HR Director complaining how her grievances had been dealt with.

The issues were referred for mediation but this was not successful. On 8 June 2021 the complainant was told that none of her grievances were upheld.

In July she was excluded from a monthly Managers’ meeting.

On 4 August 2021 the complainant resigned as a result of the discrimination and victimisation she had been subjected to.

She expected her grievances to be fully and properly investigated but this did not happen and the complainant this was because she had made discrimination complaints and amounts to victimisation by the respondent.

The respondent submits the complainant started employment with them on 25 March 2019 as a Business Planning Analyst at a salary of €47,000. It was noted her salary would rise to €50,000 on passing her remaining four accountancy exams. In July 2019 the complainant was successful in securing a temporary secondment role as Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) Manager. This role was available for eight months (from August 2019 to April 2020) as the FP&A Manager was providing maternity leave cover for another colleague. To take account of the additional responsibilities the complainant received an acting up allowance of €250 per month. In April 2020 the secondment role of FP&A Manager was advertised. The complainant did not apply for the role and was therefore not considered. In May 2020 the complainant reverted to her original role. The complainant continued to receive the acting up allowance until August 2020.

In August 2020 the complainant successfully applied for the role of Commercial Financial Analyst and was placed on a salary of €57,000. The offer was made taking the complainant’s imminent qualification as an accountant into account. She passed her final exams and on 18 January 2021 the complainant became a qualified accountant. The complainant sought a salary increase and was told the next opportunity would be at the next merit review in May 2021.

The complainant submitted formal grievances on 22 March 2021 and 12 April 2021. Given the seniority of some those about whom the complainant had raised grievances the respondent appointed an employee from outside the Irish business unit to conduct the investigation. On 8 June 2021 the complainant was issued with a Grievance Outcome letter, in which the claims of discrimination were not upheld. It was recommended that the Business Unit hold a meeting to discuss the grievances with the complainant. The complainant declined to avail of this opportunity. She also chose not to appeal the outcome.

The complainant resigned on 4 August 2021.

Promotion: CA-00043465-001, CA-00043738-001 & CA-00043739-001:

CA-00043465-001:the respondent submits this claim is out of time as it relates to events on 20 April 2020 and the complaint was submitted over eleven months later, on 8 April 2021.

The respondent says the complainant’s case is that she was not given an opportunity to apply for a post. The respondent submits the complainant did not apply for the post. The successful candidate did apply and was hired.

CA-00043738-001: the respondent submits this claim relates to the same events as CA-00043465-001, with the added assertion that the role referred to should have been advertised again in December 2020. The respondent says this assertion is purely subjective and the complainant cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination on this basis.

CA-00043739-001 – submitted 25/04/2021: the respondent says the complainant has made a number of unsubstantiated assertions which are denied in full. The respondent says the complainant had the option of applying for both positions and was supported in this. Following this support she freely chose not to apply for the BSO Alliance Team role despite being actively encouraged and supported to do so. It is accepted a Manager told the complainant that she would likely progress faster if she joined the Revenue Finance Team, based on her Personal Development Forum she was marked as “ready now” for the Revenue Planning Manager. If the role had become vacant the complainant would have been in a better position to be successful in applying for the role.

The respondent submits there was no attempt to mislead the complainant and she has failed to put forward any facts from which a prima facie presumption of discrimination can be drawn.

The allegation that Mr Ion told the complainant that her nationality was a reason she would be prevented from taking up the FPA Manager role is strongly denied by the respondent. Furthermore, it is submitted this allegation is out of time. They also note it was not included in the complainant’s initial complaints submitted in April 2021 and only added in the complainant’s written submission made in August 2022.

Conditions of Employment: CA-00043644-001 & CA-00043645-001 – submitted on 18/04/2021

CA-00043644-001: the respondent submits that notice period is determined by the CCH grade of the individual employee. Those at Grade 8 have a contractual notice period of four weeks. Employees at Grade 9 have a contractual notice period of three months.

There was an administrative error in the complainant’s notice period between March 2019 to September 2020. The discrepancy was identified in respect of three employees during an audit carried out by the respondent in 2020. The discrepancy had been rectified when the complainant commenced her new role as Commercial Financial Analyst, at Grade 9, in September 2020.

Therefore, this claim is out of time as it relates to the complainant’s role pre-September 2020 and was submitted on 18 April 2021.

CA-00043645: the respondent submits that the meetings referred to by the complainant were regular operational team meetings dealing with day-to-day issues and did not relate to the project and ad hoc work carried out by the complainant and a colleague. Neither the complainant or this colleague ever requested to attend the operational team meeting.

Equal Pay: CA-00043073 – submitted on 15 March 2021: the respondent submits that any difference in pay between the complainant and her named comparator was due to reasons other than race. The difference in pay can be justified by reference to objective grounds, and that is based on a salary matrix used by the respondent which is informed by matters including experience and whether examinations have been completed. In relation to some of the finance roles the matrix distinguishes between employees who have passed their professional accountancy exams and those who have not. The complainant was at CCH Grade 8 and HayGroup Salary Pay Scale 14 on the matrix. A Commercial Financial Analyst or a Business Planning Analyst with all exams completed is at CCH Grade 9 and HayGroup Salary Pay Scale 15. Her chosen comparator was at CCH Grade 9.

The comparator had completed her professional exams in 2017, prior to commencing employment with the respondent. The complainant did not complete her exams until January 2021. The complainant focuses her attention on the date the formal qualification was obtained, whilst the matrix refers to whether the exams have been passed.

Furthermore, the complainant was supported by the respondent in taking her exams; paying for lectures, exams and study and exam leave, at an approximate cost to the respondent of €9,000.

The respondent also submits that the comparator had work experience commencing in May 2013, whilst the complainant’s relevant work experience commenced over two years later in September 2015. Also the comparator started work in the respondent one year before the complainant.

The respondent submits that the complainant’s salary increase for passing her exams in January 2021 was taken into account when she was successful in obtaining the role of Commercial Finance Analyst in August 2020.

The respondent submits that any salary differences between the complainant and others she referred to in her equal pay claim can be explained by reference to the matrix.

Victimisation: CA-00044038-001 – submitted on 13/05/2021: the respondent submits that events after the date this claim was referred are irrelevant. The complainant says she was victimised following the referral of her first grievance to the respondent on 25 March 2021. Therefore, this claim can only refer to events between 15 March 2021 and 13 May 2021.

The respondent submits that the incidents identified by the complainant as victimisation relate to normal work interactions. The respondent says the correspondence in relation to confidentiality was not threatening and could not be considered as victimisation. The respondent submits the refusal to allow the complainant work in Romania was consistent with their practices. Also, these events took place after the complainant submitted her victimisation complaint.

The respondent also points out that in April 2021 the complainant was assessed and scored as “Ahead” in her performance in Q1 in 2021. She received a salary increase of 4.75% from May 2021 due to her “Ahead” performance rating for 2020 and her talent rating of “HiPos” for 2020. The complainant was offered support in the respondent’s EAP programme from April 2021. The respondent repeatedly attempted to engage with the complainant and sought to resolve matters by way of mediation. And the respondent submits they conducted a thorough internal grievance process addressing the complainant’s concerns, which the complainant chose not to appeal.

The respondent submits the complainant was not subject to victimisation and there was no causal link between any adverse treatment (which is denied) and the protected actions  

Promotion - CA-00043465-001, CA-00043738-001 & CA-00043739-001

The respondent submits that CA-00043465 -001 is out of time as it relates to events on 20 April 2020 and the complaint was submitted over eleven months later, on 8 April 2021. The complainant submits this is one of a number of similar incidents, included in CA-00043738-001 and CA-00043739-001, which are related and therefore form a continuum to bring this claim within time. I accept that the events put forward by the complainant in these three complainants are related and cannot be taken in isolation. Given the last date of alleged discrimination submitted by the complainant is in December 2020 I find all three complaints are in time.

I have considered all the evidence given by the complainant and the respondent, both orally and in writing. The complaints made relate to opportunities for the complainant to move within the respondent. Clearly the complainant received good reviews for her performance, and she was ambitious. She was given an opportunity to act-up and received an allowance, it was not intended the acting-up would be permanent. Later on, she had discussions with two managers about the best path for her to take. She considered two options and chose one. From her evidence the role did not work out as she envisaged.

The complainant included a comment made by Mr Ion regarding a role in the Czech Republic. Whilst the respondent is a world-wide company all the complaints before me are made against Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Limited, who were the complainant’s employer, according to her contracts of employment. Apart from this one comment all the other evidence given relates to her employment in Ireland. The alleged comment only related to the Czech Republic. I therefore find it is irrelevant to these complaints and I will not be including it in my consideration.

My conclusions into the events described by the complainant as racial discrimination are that she was treated the same as anyone else in a comparable situation would have been. I find that she has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to promotion.

Conditions of Employment: CA-00043644-001 & CA-00043645-001

CA-00043644-001: relates to notice period. The complainant did have a notice period of 12 weeks when, in accordance with her grading, she should have a notice period of 4 weeks. The complainant referred to an Irish colleague who had the correct notice period to support her claim of racial discrimination. The respondent says this error finished when the complainant commenced a new role in September 2020 and the claim is out of time as it was referred to the WRC on 18 April 2021. Section 77(5) (a) of the Employment Equality Act 1998, as amended, states “Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”  Section 77(5)(b) of the Act states this period may be extended to 12 months for reasonable cause.

I conclude that this complaint was made outside of the six-month time limit and the complainant has not given any reasonable cause as to why this period should be extended. I therefore conclude this complaint is out of time and I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the claim.

CA-00043645-001: relates to the complainant not being invited to attend weekly team meetings and regular one-to-one meetings with her manager when she started in a new role in the Commercial Finance Team in September 2020. The respondent says the team meetings related to operational matters which the colleague and a colleague were not part of. Also, that the manager had regular one-to-one meetings with two colleagues for specific reasons. I accept the evidence of the respondent and my conclusions into the events described by the complainant as racial discrimination are that she was treated the same as anyone else in a comparable situation would have been. I find that she has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to promotion.

Equal Pay: CA-00043073

The complainant has submitted that she was doing the same or more responsible work than a named comparator, who is Irish, and she was paid less than the comparator. The respondent says any difference in pay related to the different grades and because of different stages of exam completion. The grading matrix refers to whether exams have been passed, whilst the complainant has focussed the date the formal qualification was obtained.

The respondent says the named comparator completed her professional exams in 2017, before she started her employment with the respondent. The complainant completed her exams in January 2021.

Section 19 (5) of the Acts which states that "nothing in this Part shall prevent an employer from paying, on grounds other discriminatory grounds, different rates of remuneration to different employees". In this claim I conclude that any difference in pay was for reasons other than race and the complainant has failed to prove his claim of equal pay in relation to the named comparator.  

Victimisation: CA-00044038-001

The respondent has submitted that the complaint of victimisation was referred to the WRC on 13 May 2021 and I cannot consider any events which occurred after that date. The initial complaint of victimisation was referred to the WRC on 13 May 2021 and states “full details will follow in due course”. These full details were included in the complainant’s written submission which was sent to the WRC on 16 August 2022. Whilst it is accepted that the initial complaint can be amended so long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same and that “further and better particulars are not time barred”. In this incident I accept all the incidents given by the complainant are part of the same claim of victimisation. As such I will consider all of these incidents.

The complainant says that she was subject to adverse treatment after she raised grievances with the respondent citing discrimination and after she submitted the withing complaints of discrimination to the WRC.

She claims her grievances were not properly investigated and her manager and colleagues stopped communicating and interacting with her. She also claims communications regarding the confidentiality of her complaints was an attempt by the respondent to get her to withdraw her complaints to the WRC. She also claims the refusal of the respondent to allow her to work in Romania was further adverse treatment.

The respondent counters by saying all the incidents identified by the complainant relate to normal work interactions and they acted within their practices and procedures, including investigating her grievances. They noted the complainant did take up the suggestion of informal meeting to discuss her grievances and she did not appeal the outcome.

Section 74(2) of the Acts defines victimisation as follows: -

“(2) For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to— (a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,

(b) any proceedings by a complainant, (c) an employee having represented or otherwise supported a complainant, (d) the work of an employee having been compared with that of another employee for any of the purposes of this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act, (e) an employee having been a witness in any proceedings under this Act or the Equal Status Act 2000 or any such repealed enactment, (f) an employee having opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the said Act of 2000 or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment, or (g) an employee having given notice of an intention to take any of the actions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.”

Protection against victimisation is a vital component in ensuring the effectiveness of anti-discrimination law. It enables those who considered themselves wronged by not being afforded equal treatment to raise complaints without fear of retribution.

It is clear the grievances raised by the complainant included complaints of discrimination and she referred complaints of discrimination to the WRC. She says that subsequent events amount to “adverse treatment” whilst the respondent says they were normal work interactions. They also put forward some other positive interactions with the complainant during the same period.

I have considered all the evidence given by the complainant and the respondent, both orally and in writing, and conclude that the complainant has failed to show that the incidents and events she submitted amount to “adverse treatment” arising for the grievances she raised and complaints to the WRC. I therefore find she was not victimised.

For the reasons given above I make the following decisions:

CA-00043465-001, CA-00043738-001 and CA-00043739-001; for the reasons given above I find the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant in relation to promotion,

CA-00043644-001 and CA-00043645-001; for the reasons give above I find the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant in relation to conditions of employment,

CA-00043073-001; for the reasons given above I find there are objective grounds other than race for the difference in pay in accordance with section 29(5) of the Act and that the complainant has not been discriminated against by the respondent.

CA-00044038-001; for the reasons given above I find the complainant was not victimised.

Employment Equality – promotion, conditions of employment, equal pay, victimisation – no discrimination