Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary Ann  Bell

Manguard Plus

Representatives

Anthony McIntyre of the Independent Workers Union

 Joseph Bolger of ESA Consultants

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-00057129-001

14/06/2023

The Complainant is employed as a security guard by the Respondent and has worked for them on a number of different sites. She began working on a client site in central Dublin (“Site A”) in November 2019.

In January 2023 the Complainant was transferred from Site A to a different client’s site in suburban Dublin (“Site B”) on short notice.

She alleges that the Respondent outlined to her that they wanted to put a male member of staff into the role in Site A. The Respondent denies this and argue that the Complainant was moved following client complaints.

The Complainant’s representative made detailed written and oral submissions.

The Complainant gave evidence under oath.

She was home following her shift on Friday the 27th of January 2023.  At about 7.30 pm her manager Colm Hanlon called her. She told her she was not going back to Site A and that they wanted a male who would be more aggressive to take over that post.

She was upset and asked what she did. He told her she did nothing wrong. She spent weekend under a lot of stress and cried. 

She was later replaced by a male security officer.

She was referred to the complaint made against her by the client. This was sent by email in December 2022. She was never told about it at the time nor when she was transferred. She only found out about this during the course of her subsequent grievance. She was never asked to respond and was never given a PIP. One of the complaints was entirely inaccurate.  

The Complainant was cross examined by the Respondent’s representative Mr Bolger.

She joined the Respondent in November 2019. Site A was the first site she worked on and she loved it there.

She went over the call on the 27th of January 2023 in more detail. She was at home sitting on the sofa and her partner was sitting to the right. The call came out of the blue.

She always answers her phone on speaker. In the past a friend had brain tumour and believed it was because of her phone. Since then Complainant has always put her phone on speaker.

She rang Mr Hanlon back on Monday to ask where she was being put. He told her that he’d get back to her. She put it to him that it was discrimination.

She later wrote to the Respondent alleging discrimination on the 13th of February.

She was moved to Site B in suburban south Dublin. She didn’t like that role which involved sitting at a desk, 7am to 5pm. A female security officer worked that job before her.

She has gone to a different client site since. She didn’t know who was there before her in that role.

She is still working for the Respondent.

She went through the grievance process which did not go in her favour. She appealed but did not succeed.

The Complainant’s partner Mr Donal O’Brien gave evidence under affirmation.

On the night of the 27th the Complainant received a call. She put the phone on speaker as she normally does. She was told that they wanted a male who would be more aggressive and to stay at home on Monday coming. He was absolutely certain about this.

The Complainant normally takes phone calls in front of him.

Mr O’Brien was cross examined by the Respondent’s representative Mr Bolger.

He again recounted his memory of the phone call. It was a Friday evening. They were sitting watching the tv. Mr Hanlon said she was being taken out of Site A so she put the phone on speaker.

Mr O’Brien denied conspiring with the Complainant to provide evidence to support her case. He wrote an email confirming what he had heard but only did so at the request of the internal HR investigator in March 2023.

He had previously emailed a complaint to the Respondent about a member of their staff.  

The Respondent made detailed written and oral submissions.

Mr Colm Hanlon gave evidence under oath.

He had been the Complainant’s line manager. He met her when she first started in Site A. From there on he visited the site about once a month.  The Complainant had replaced a male on that site who had had a run in with the client and had been removed.

The client didn’t have issues with the Complainant until December 2022.  The Respondent provides security officers under contract. Their clients control their own sites and have the right to ask for someone to leave.

The client’s site manager didn’t feel that the Complainant was performing. She felt there had been a dip off in the Complainant’s performance and that she was spending too much time away from reception.

They agreed that they would monitor the situation and didn’t approach her about these issues.  The client’s site manager spoke about improving her PC skills with an ECDL course.

As far as he was aware everything was okay until he got a phone call in January.

The client’s site manager had come to the end of her tether and wanted a higher profile officer who was of a better calibre.

He called the Complainant and relayed this to her. He told her that they wanted a higher calibre officer.  He was not aware that he was on speaker.

The first time he heard about an allegation of discrimination was when he got the Complainant’s email. He responded that he did not request that a male officer take over. The language he had used was that the client wanted a stronger calibre and more proactive security officer to deal with the ongoing issues of anti-social behaviour.

They sent her to Site B so he had no further engagement with her. Site B was under a different manager. Replacing officers is common. There are no exclusive female and male roles.

Mr Hanlon was cross examined by Mr McIntyre for the Complainant.

He met with the Complainant once a month or so.  

He didn’t tell her about the client’s complaint because that was what the client site manager wanted. They did not communicate further by writing.  

He did not believe he had an obligation to notify the Complainant. He consulted with the client and the client wasn’t sure what she wanted to happen. They had two meetings.

Ultimately it is the client’s premises not the Respondent’s.  

The Complainant was not moved because of issues raised by the client in December but because they wanted someone of a stronger calibre to help address the rise in anti-social behaviour.

The Complainant was replaced with a male because that was who happened to be available.

The Respondent denies the allegation that the Complainant was moved due to her gender and that she was told this over the phone.

The Complainant seeks to rely on her and her partner’s oral evidence of the call on the 27th of January.

The Respondent points to the evidence of Colm Hanlon which was that there were ongoing issues between the client’s site manager and the Complainant and the site manager was not satisfied with the Complainant. They argue that this was the reason for the Complainant being moved. Mr Hanlon’s evidence was that he never mentioned the Complainant’s gender on the call on the 27th and that it wasn’t a factor.

Mr Hanlon’s evidence is supported by written evidence outlining that there were preexisting issues between the Complainant and the client’s site manager. On review of the written submissions provided I can see that these issues were mentioned by the Complainant in the transcripts of the grievance hearing and appeal.

In November 2022 the Complainant lodged a bullying complaint against the client’s site manager.  She alleged that she was asked to do administrative work outside the scope of her role as a security officer and then criticised her for failing to do this work.

In December 2022 the Respondent’s site manager put in a detailed complaint regarding the Complainant. This email pointed to 5 different instances where she was unhappy with the Complainant’s work. These mostly centred around communication and the Complainant being absent from reception. While these complaints did not result in the Complainant’s transfer they do support the position that there was an escalating problem with anti-social behaviour in the area and that the client was generally unsatisfied with the Complainant.

Having reviewed the above evidence I find that, on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence of Mr Hanlon over that of the Complainant and Mr O’Brien.  I find that the redeployment of the Complainant was unrelated to gender.

The complaint is not well founded.