Eirebus Ltd (Represented by Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd) v Nuala Bonner

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Date19 October 2018
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.EDA1844 ADJ-00008859 CA-00011812-001

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

ADE/18/16

DETERMINATION NO.EDA1844

ADJ-00008859 CA-00011812-001

PARTIES:
Eirebus Limited (Represented by Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited)
and
Nuala Bonner
DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015

SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision ADJ-00008859

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's DecisionADJ-00008859 to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 83(1) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd October, 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:
3

This is an appeal by Eirebus Limited (the Appellant) against the decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 (the Acts). The Adjudication Officer held that the Appellant had discriminated against Ms Nuala Bonner on the grounds of gender in terms of Section 6(2) of the Acts and contrary to section 8 of the Acts.

4

The Respondent's complaint was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 7 th June 2017 and the decision under appeal was issued on 16 th February 2018. The within Appeal was received by the Court on 13 th March 2018.

5

The case

6

The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a tour driver on two tours in August 2016. She worked from approximately 11 th August until 16 th August and again on 25 th August 2016. She applied for a position as a tour driver with the Appellant in March 2017 but was not asked to attend for interview and was not offered employment. She contends that the reason she was not offered employment in 2017 was her gender and that she was discriminated against within the meaning of the act.

7

Summary position of the Respondent

8

The Respondent submitted that she had worked for the Appellant in 2016 and had not been advised of any issues with her performance. She said that her final engagement with the Appellant in 2016 was the pick up of a tour at Dublin airport which she was programmed to drive for a number of days. She maintained that she was expected to act as a Guide on the tour which role she was not employed to carry out. She submitted that the client's tour leader had assaulted her on the tour and that she had left that tour on the first day. She applied once again for employment with the Appellant in March 2017 but received no response from the Appellant. She submitted that she had contacted the Appellant on a number of occasions in March 2017 by telephone and had spoken to Ms NH. She submitted that Ms NH had advised her that her build was not suitable for engagement as driver because she would not be able to lift luggage and that the Appellant was seeking to recruit men.

9

Summary testimony on behalf of the Respondent

10

Mr MB gave evidence that he was a tour bus driver. He stated that he had contacted the Appellant in March 2017 and made enquiries about employment. He stated that he was asked on the phone by ‘Jeff’ whether he had a suitable licence. He stated that he was asked to attend the Appellant premises for a ‘chat’ and was told that the Appellant would try to ‘push work his way’.

11

On cross examination he said that he had never attended the Appellant premises following his initial telephone conversation.

12

Summary position of the Appellant

13

The Appellant submitted that it had not discriminated against the Respondent on grounds of her gender. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent had not been offered employment in 2017 because of the unsatisfactory nature of her performance on two tours in 2016. The Appellant submitted that it had received complaints as regards the performance of the Respondent from the client on the first tour she worked on and that she had walked away from the second tour on the first day of that tour. The Appellant submitted that this latter behaviour was...

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