Jewelstar Designs Ltd (Represented by Venetia Taylor, B.L., Instructed by Michael Tracey & Company, Solicitors) v Glenn Sheppard

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 April 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 4 JIEC 0302
• Date: 03 April 2018
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.EDA1824 DEC-E2016-146
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

ADE/17/5

DETERMINATION NO.EDA1824

DEC-E2016-146

PARTIES:

Jewelstar Designs Limited (Represented by Venetia Taylor, B.L., Instructed by Michael Tracey & Co, Solicitors)

and

Glenn Sheppard

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Mr Hall

SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2011

SUBJECT:

1 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. DEC-E2016–146.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 19 December 2016. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22 February 2018. The following is the Court's Determination:-

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This is an appeal brought on behalf of Jewelstar Designs Limited from a decision of an Equality Officer bearing reference number DEC-E2016–146 and dated 8 November 2016 in which the Equality Officer upheld Mr Sheppard's complaints of discrimination and discriminatory dismissal on the age ground and made an award of €12,500.00 under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 19 December 2016. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 22 February 2018. The parties are referred to in the within determination as they were at first instance i.e. Mr Sheppard is referred to as the Complainant; Jewelstar Designs Limited as the Respondent. The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf. The Court also heard evidence from Mr Wayne Knowles, a director of the Respondent company, and from Mr Anikesh Nunkoo, an employee of the Respondent.

The Factual Background/Parties' Submissions

4 The Complainant was employed for a relatively short period by the Respondent. The duration of his employment was some 12.5 working days: from 26 November 2014 to 12 December 2014. The parties' respective versions of the material events in issue can, therefore, be recited succinctly as follows.

5 The Complainant submitted a detailed curriculum vitae to the Respondent on 18 March 2014 in response to an advertisement placed by the latter seeking an internship. The Complainant was not accepted for employment on that occasion. However, the Respondent (on notice to the Complainant) retained his curriculum vitae on file with a view to making contact with him in the event that any suitable vacancy should arise in the future. Such a vacancy did arise in November of 2014. There followed an exchange of emails between the Complainant and Mr Knowles about the nature of the position on offer and the terms on which it might be offered. This culminated in the Complainant's attending for an interview with Mr Knowles at the Respondent's premises on 14 November 2014.

6 It is agreed between the parties that — on 18 November 2014 — the Complainant was offered and accepted a contract of employment to work for the Respondent at its premises in Eustace Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2 as a full-time Production Engineer. His starting salary was €21,000.00 per annum to be reviewed six months after the start date subject to the Complainant having satisfactorily completed a six-month probationary period.

7 The Complainant submits that he was advised by Mr Knowles at the outset of his employment he should observe and shadow a fellow employee, Mr Ainikesh Nunkoo, so as to familiarise himself with the work and the location of tools and equipment in the workshop. In any event, the Complainant would not be able to undertake production work himself until such time as a jeweller's workbench was in place for him. This had been ordered by the Respondent but would take a number of weeks to arrive.

8 The Complainant next submits that the following...