Case Number: DEC-E2016-026. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Date18 February 2016
Docket NumberDEC-E2016-026
PartiesOLUMIDE SMITH -v- CISCO SYSTEMS INTERWORKING (IRELAND) LIMITED.
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-026 PARTIES OLUMIDE SMITH AND CISCO SYSTEMS INTERWORKING (IRELAND) LIMITED. (Kate O’Toole BL, instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) File Reference: EE/2013/605 Date of issue: 18th February 2016

HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts, Section 6, Discrimination on grounds of race. Equal pay.

DISPUTE

The complainant referred his claims to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 28 November 2013 under the Employment Equality Acts 2000 – 2105. On 15 September 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Niamh O’ Carroll Kelly, 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 and in accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on 23 September 2015.

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.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION.

1.1 The Complainant alleges he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of race pursuant to section 2 (2) (h) of the Act.

1.2 The respondent alleges that all but one of the complaints are statute barred.

Allegation 1

It is alleged that the Complainant was assigned/instructed to carry out more complicated/complex work assignments relative to or which are above the requirement/capacity of a Grade level 6 Software QA/Engineer II in the period 24 January 2008 to December 2008. Pursuant to Section 77 this claim should have been referred on or before 29 June 2009. It was referred over four years after that date.

Allegation 2

The Complainant also alleged that “a Major and a minor unnatural challenges encountered in the Respondent’s premises in May 2008 which could have impaired” his performance. The most recent date the Complainant refers to in respect of this claim is 22 May 2008. Pursuant to Section 77 this claim should have been referred on or before 21 November 2008. It was referred five years after that date.

Allegation 3

That the Complainant was assigned/instructed to carry out more complicated/complex work assignments relative to or which are above the requirement/capacity of a Grade level 6 Software QA/Engineer II in the period 2 January 2009 to December 2009. Pursuant to Section 77 this claim should have been referred on or before 29 June 2010. It was referred over three years later.

Allegation 4

The Complainant also alleged that “another Unnatural Event/Service failure” occurred on 10 February 2009. Pursuant to Section 77 this claim should have been referred on or before 9 August 2009. It was referred more than four years later.

Allegation 5

That the Complainant was assigned/instructed to carry out more complicated/complex work assignments relative to or which are above the requirement/capacity of a Grade level 6 Software QA/Engineer II in the period 2 January 2010 to December 2010. Pursuant to Section 77 this claim should have been referred on or before 29 June 2011. It was referred over two years after that date.

Allegation 6

That the Complainant was assigned/instructed to carry out more complicated/complex work assignments relative to or which are above the requirement/capacity...

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