Employment Equality Acts 1998-2007
Equality Officer Decision
DEC-E2008-030
Ionie Lee
-V-
Mary B. Cremin (Walkinstown) Ltd.
(Represented by Beauchamps Solicitors)
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Ionie Lee that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment relating to access to employment by Mary B. Cremin (Walkinstown) Ltd. on the ground of race in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2007 and contrary to section 11 of those Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 12 July 2005 under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2007. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated the case to the undersigned Conor Stokes - 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. Submissions were sought and received from the parties, and a hearing was held on 6 May 2008. Additional submissions were sought and received from the Respondent and were copied to the complainant.
2. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSIONS
2.1 The complainant submitted that on 11 February 2005, she was subjected to discriminatory treatment in relation to access to employment at the Walkinstown offices of the respondent. She submitted that this treatment was based on the grounds of her race. The complainant submitted that she had visited the respondent’s offices, completed a series of tests and eventually supplied reference contact details.
2.2 The complainant submitted that she was given a business card and told that the consultant would be in contact with her. She further submitted that the respondent had never contacted her for work even though she had seen jobs advertised by the respondent which would have been suitable for someone with her skills and experience.
2.3 The complainant submitted that she believed that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her colour because they did not have vacancies that were suitable for her on their books.
3. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
3.1 The respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations were groundless and without foundation.
3.2 The respondent submitted that the general procedure for an applicant to it was for the person to complete an application and declaration form. The normal procedure thereafter is that once the application details are completed and the declaration form signed, a recruitment consultant would meet with the applicant to inform them of the confidentially issues, and go through the information contained in their Curriculum Vitae, application and declaration forms. This staff member would also outline the various stages of the recruitment process to the applicant.
3.3 The respondent submitted that the complainant twice refused to complete a ‘Job Application Form’ at its offices. It also submitted that the CV presented to it by the complainant was incomplete and contained gaps in experience. The respondent submitted that when the complainant was asked to provided additional details, she refused to do so.
3.4 The respondent submitted that when the complainant called into its premises she insisted on talking to a representative. Although not the normal practice in the absence of the previously requested information, a recruitment consultant met with the complainant.
3.5 The respondent submitted that in the complainant’s case only one reference was sent in to the respondent and it did not correspond to any work experience details provided on the complainant’s CV.
3.6 The respondent submitted that despite the absence of essential employment history details the complainant’s details were uploaded onto the respondent’s computer system. The respondent submitted that the complainant’s nationality or ethnic background is not apparent from the complainant’s CV, application form or on-screen data.
3.7 The respondent submitted that only suitably qualified candidates are placed with employers or sent for interview. The respondent submitted that the absence of full information regarding previous employment made it virtually impossible to recommend the complainant for employment. The respondent submitted that it would have been for this reason only that Ms Lee was not selected for placement/interview.
4. EQUALITY OFFICER’S FINDINGS
4.1 The issue for decision by me is whether or not Mary B. Cremin (Walkinstown) Ltd. discriminated against Ms Lee on grounds of race, in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and contrary to section 11 of those Acts
4.2 Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2007 sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which they can rely in asserting that they have suffered discriminatory treatment. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to deal with the claim of discrimination raised.
4.3 At the outset of the hearing the complainant was not in a position to provide any dates or detail in relation to her allegations. She was vague and uncertain as to what information she had provided to the respondent. When I put specific questions to her about various issues raised in the submissions, she replied with supposition as to what she would have done rather than what she did do. When I pursued these issues with the complainant, she reverted to vague and uncertain responses. The complainant was unable to provide any documentary evidence as to what information she had provided to the respondent. I note that the respondent was in a position to provide copies of information submitted to it by the complainant at the time of application and to provide a contemporaneous account of the meeting of the parties.
4.5 I find that the evidence available to me does not raise a prima facie case to support the claim that the respondent treated the complainant less favourably than any other candidate.
5. DECISION
5.1 Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented to me, I find that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the basis of the race ground has not been established and the complainant’s claim therefore fails.
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
11 June 2008