Case Number: DEC-E2016-032. Workplace Relations Commission

Judgment Date01 February 2016
Year2016
Docket NumberDEC-E2016-032
CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
PartiesMargaret Stafford -V- Ferns Diocesan Youth Service
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-032 PARTIES Margaret Stafford AND Ferns Diocesan Youth Service (represented by IBEC) File reference: EE/2012/513 Date of issue: 22 February 2016

HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts - Sections 6 & 8 – Traveller Community – Access to Employment – Promotion – Victimisation - Discriminatory Dismissal – jurisdiction under section 101

1. DISPUTE

1.1. This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Margaret Stafford that she was discriminated against by Ferns Diocesan Youth Service on the grounds of membership of the Traveller Community contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts in terms access to employment, promotion and discriminatory dismissal in accordance with section 8 of the Acts and that she was victimised in accordance with section 74 (2) of the Employment Equality Acts.

1.2. The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 28 September 2012 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 12 March 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Hugh Lonsdale, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on 22 April 2015 and final information was received on 3 July 2015.

1.3. This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

2. COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION

2.1. The complainant started working for the respondent in June 2008 as a Youth Information Assistant on a Community Employment Scheme. She submits that she is well qualified as she holds a degree in Applied Social Care. A colleague was promoted but she thought nothing of it at the time, assuming the colleague was better qualified and more experienced.

2.2. She was on the Community Employment Scheme for 3 years, working 20 hours per week. When this finished she was offered 7 hours per week, which she accepted.

2.3. Subsequently a vacancy for 20 hours per week became available and these hours were divided evenly between the complainant and a colleague who started working for the respondent after her. This meant she would have been working a total of 17.5 hours.

2.4. The complainant submits she should have been offered all 20 hours as she was well qualified and had longer service than the colleague who was offered the other tem hours. No reason was given as to why she had not been given the 20 hours and the complainant submits it was because of her traveller background.

2.5. She was encouraged to take the hours but felt the offer and the encouragement were not meaningful, as she had made it known that it would not be financially feasible for her to continue on 17.5 hours. The complainant submits that 27.5 hours would have been acceptable and reasonable. She appealed the decision to divide the hours but the decision was upheld.

2.6. The complainant submits that she was subsequently dismissed in a discriminatory manner.

3. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

3.1. The respondent submits that the complainant started working for them on 10 June 2008 on a Community Employment Scheme. They confirm she did obtain a degree in Applied Social Studies which was funded by the respondent.

3.2. When the Community Employment Scheme ended the complainant was given a one year extension on the CE scheme to allow her to complete the course. No further extension could be given

3.3. The respondent submits they subsequently secured funding for the complainant to continue to work with clients and she was given a fixed term contract of 7 hours per week to work as a Youth Information Worker from 29 August 2011 to 30 April 2012.

3.4. In November 2011 the respondent advertised a temporary part-time post of Youth Information Worker for 20 hours per week. This was to cover sick leave and as such was to be reviewed weekly. Interviews were held on 29 November 2011 and the complainant was offered 10 hours and the other 10 hours were offered to another applicant.

3.5. The respondent submits that the complainant met the CEO and said that the 7 hours together with the 10 hours were not financially viable. She needed 20 hours in addition to the 7 she was working and refused the 10 hours. The complainant requested the Board of Directors to review the decision.

3.6. Subsequently on 12 January 2012 the complainant met her supervisor and said she considered she was not offered the position due to her traveller background. Her supervisor was not aware of her background.

3.7. The respondent submits that the complainant worked 7 hours...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT