Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alina  Holowczak

Aryzta Food Solutions Ireland

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Paulina Borkowska

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-00052912-001

20/09/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a food production company, in 2011 as a general operative on a production line. The Complainant submitted a complaint form to the WRC which was received on 20 September 2022. The Complainant submits that she was discriminated by reason of her Religion in Conditions of Employment and other. An in-person hearing took place on 5 July 2023.

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath at the hearing.

The Complainant stated that at the end of March 2022 she was told by her manager to remove a chain she was wearing which has a small religious medal on it. She did not understand what was going on.  The following morning, she went to work still wearing the chain, which in her own words, “is always covered due to the clothes I wear, you cannot see it.”

That morning, as normal she went to her manager to receive to receive her tasks. He asked the Complainant had she taken off the chain, when she told him that she had not taken off the chain, he said there would have to be an investigation.

The Complainant stated that the following day a woman came to her and started shouting at her on the production line. The Complainant did not know what was going on.

A disciplinary meeting took place on 1 April 2022, the notes of which were included by the Complainant among documents she sent to the WRC.  The Complainant stated that she was not represented at this meeting.  The Complainant stated that she felt she was bullied at this meeting.

Despite the threat of disciplinary action being raised at this meeting, the Complainant was not subjected to disciplinary action as she went to her GP after the meeting and went on sick leave thereafter.

The Complainant stated that she was absent for a total of three months due to the stress she was under due to the events related to above. She required counselling and she attended a psychologist. She returned to work around the start of July. She is now working on another shift and is happy at work.

In response to questions from me the Complainant stated that she had not submitted an EE2 Form to her employer as she did not know it existed. She stated that she was treated differently than her colleagues were because of religious nature of the pendant she was wearing, “other people were wearing chains, not religious chains, and no one told them anything.” People wearing non-religious chains wear, according to the Complainant, allowed to wear them.  She also stated that, “nobody saw it was Christian as it was covered up, [her manager] only saw a bit of the chain.” When asked to confirm what she meant, the Complainant stated that her manager only saw “a bit of the chain on the neck.”

The Complainant stated that she told her manager at the meeting of 1 April 2022, that the chain had a religious significance for her and that she would not take it off.

Regarding comparators, the Complainant stated that the comparators were all her colleagues who were wearing chains but were not told to take them off.

The Complainant finished her evidence by saying that she had worked in peace and quiet in the company for many years and she had not had any issues with anyone.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

I find the Complaint genuinely believes she was discriminated against on religious grounds and unfairly dealt with in the investigation process referred to above.  The impact this had on her was severe and resulted in her being absent from work for some three months.  It is good she has returned to work and is happy at work.

Notwithstanding the above, in Employment Equality cases the burden of proof lies with the Complainant and they must establish a prima facie case against the Respondent.  In this instant case I do not believe the Complainant has established a prima facie case for the reasons set out below.

The general rule in the context of the burden of proof is that the burden lies on the party asserting a particular claim.

I have examined whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.  The Labour Court, in Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 emphasised that, in the first instance, the claimant “must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination”.   It continued:

 “It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

In order to determine whether the complainant has established a prima facie case a three-tier test is employed:

Firstly, the complainant must establish that she is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

Secondly, she must establish that the specific treatment alleged has actually occurred.

Thirdly, it must be shown that the treatment was less favourable than the treatment which was or would have been afforded to another person in similar circumstances not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

In this case I find the following in relation to the three-tier test.

Firstly, the complainant is a Christian, covered by the religion ground.

Secondly, the Complainant was ordered to attend a disciplinary meeting about wearing a chain which held a Christian symbol. However, as stated by the Complainant, at the time she was told to remove the chain by her line manager, he did not know that there was a religious symbol held by the chain.  If he did not know the chain had a religious significance, he could not have been treated the Complainant less favourably because of her religion. The element of Religion could not have entered the rationale for his instruction to the Complainant.

Thirdly, the fact that the treatment afforded to the Complainant was less favourable than what was afforded to others wearing chains that did not have a religious connotation, i.e people in similar circumstances not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground has not been proven. In fact, it would seem the notes provided by the Complainant from the meeting of 1 April 2022, indicate that the line manager referred to had told several of the Complainant’s colleagues to remove various pieces of jewellery for hygiene and safety reasons.

I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case and her complaint therefore does not succeed.

The Complainant was not discriminated against.

Religious symbol.