Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emmanuella Umeh

Skyhandling Partnerd Limited

Representatives

 Represented herself

Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068178-001

18/12/2024

The complainant was employed as a passenger services agent with the respondent from September 4th until December 17th 2024, when her employment was terminated.  She was a part-time employee on an hourly rate of €13.00, plus €1.00 per hour shift allowance and €1.00 per hour attendance allowance.  At the hearing, she said that her hours varied from week to week but that she generally worked around 20 hours per week.

A letter issued to the complainant on December 17th 2024 states that she was dismissed because she didn’t demonstrate the skills and ability to do her job and because she didn’t comply with company’s policy and procedures.  On January 10th 2025, the complainant appealed against her dismissal and she attended an appeal hearing on January 17th.  She was accompanied at the appeal by a union representative.  On January 31st, she was informed that the decision to dismiss her was upheld. 

On the form she submitted to the WRC on December 18th, the day after her dismissal, the complainant said that she wanted to raise a complaint about her dismissal and ongoing issues of workplace bullying that she claims were not addressed by management.

Evidence of the Complainant

The complainant said that she reported to two members of the management team that she was being called names and that rumours were being spread about her personal life and her previous employment record.  She said that her concerns were not taken seriously.  She said that a colleague remarked that she was dressed like a slut at the Christmas party and made comments about her private parts.  This colleague made a complaint that the complainant was calling her names.  The complainant said that the reason she was calling her colleague names is because she was spreading harmful rumours about her. 

The complainant said that a team leader with longer service than her didn’t like her and that people told her that he called her “stupid” and “dumb.”  At one interaction with this team leader, she was accused of leaving a desk strewn with bag tags.  She said that the team leader screamed at her and told her to stop making a mess.  When she told a manager about this, the team leader was instructed to go on a break and then she was put back working with him.  She said that she started to “act out” because of this. 

The complainant said that the team leader had a friend in the company who is from Asia and she heard that this person threatened to beat her up.  She said that no one seemed to care about what she said.

One evening, when she was still in work because she was waiting for her bus to go home, the complainant said that she clocked out late.  She said that she was seen by a manager who accused her of stealing from the company.  She said that, in retaliation for clocking out late, the manager didn’t put her back at a boarding gate. 

When she defended herself from the behaviour or her colleagues, the complainant said that she became the subject of complaints and she was dismissed without notice.

The complainant said that she didn’t tell the terminal services manager what was happening but she told other managers.  She didn’t send any emails about her concerns.

In her evidence at the hearing on June 9th 2025, the complainant said that she feels that she was treated unfairly.  As she submitted this complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (“the Act”), I asked her how she felt discriminated against.  I explained that, to ground a complaint under the Act, she needs to demonstrate to me that she was treated less favourably than another person because she is female, or black, or young, or because of her race or sexual orientation, or due to a disability, or one of the other grounds of discrimination set out at  s.6(2) of the Act.  The complainant did not suggest that she was discriminated against, but she reiterated that she felt that she was treated unfairly and that people with longer service were listened to and that no one listened to her.

The respondent’s’ position is that the complainant was dismissed within her probation period, arising from a series of complaints about her performance and conduct at work.

Four weeks after the commencement of her employment, the complainant was spoken to by a supervisor about breaches of the grooming policy.  From the documents submitted by the respondent, it appears that she wore too much makeup, or no makeup, and that she wore hoop earrings that are not allowed.

On December 6th 2024, a team leader reported that the complainant was rude to him and used expletives in front of passengers at a boarding gate.  He complained that her behaviour was disrespectful and unprofessional and that he had witnessed her being offensive to other colleagues who were giving her instructions about her job.

On December 14th 2024, the complainant was working at a boarding gate with the same team leader.  He reported that the complainant was again offensive to him, called him names and cursing at him in front of passengers at the gate.  He described her behaviour as “nothing less than bullying.”  He left the gate and told his manager that he was resigning.  After the incident, the complainant was sent home and the team leader was persuaded to remain at work.

On December 17th, the complainant was dismissed.  During the appeal hearing on January 17th, she complained about the conduct of some of her colleagues.  None of her allegations were corroborated by any other employee.

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant did not make a complaint about bullying or harassment to a supervisor or a manager or to someone from the HR department.  During her appeal, she did not refer to discrimination on any of the nine grounds set out at s.6(2) of the Employment Equality Act. 

Concluding his submission for the respondent, Mr Hegarty said that the complainant has failed to establish facts that show that she was discriminated against on any of the protected grounds.

Evidence of the Former Terminal Services Manager, Ms Claire Kelly

Ms Kelly said that, between September and December 2024, she was the complainant’s line manager.  She said that the complainant never brought any concerns to her attention.  Ms Kelly dismissed the complainant.  In response to a question from Mr Hegarty about why she reached this decision, Ms Kelly said that there were relatively small issues about grooming that the complainant needed guidance with.  Ms Kelly said that grooming is an important issue for employees and that there is a significant focus on this issue at induction training.

Ms Kelly said that the complainant began to have interactions with her colleagues.  They complained about her not being professional or courteous.  Ms Kelly said that the job of a service agent is not just about working on a computer and that passenger management is critical.  She said that she decided that the complainant wasn’t right for the job.

Ms Kelly said that the complainant didn’t raise a grievance about how she was treated by her colleagues, despite the issues that she raised at her appeal meeting.  She was dismissed because of her interaction with a team leader at a boarding gate on December 17th 2024, which was not the first time that there had been a report about her unprofessional conduct.

The complainant didn’t ask Ms Kelly any questions.

The legal framework prohibiting discrimination on nine specific grounds is set out at section 6(1) of the Act: 

“…discrimination shall be taken to occur where –

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2), in this Act, referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’…”

Subsection 6(2) lists the nine grounds from (a) through to (i) as follows:

a)       Gender

b)      Civil Status

c)       Family

d)      Sexual orientation

e)      Religion

f)        Age

g)       Disability

h)      Race

i)        Membership of the Traveller community

At the hearing, the complainant did not state that, because she belongs to any of these groups, she was treated less favourably than another person in her workplace.  She stated that she felt that she was treated unfairly and that others with long service were listened to and that her concerns were not listened to.

While the complainant was not represented at the hearing, she told me that she was a member of SIPTU and that she was assisted by her union representative at the hearing of her appeal.  She said that she didn’t get much assistance with her complaint to the WRC.

It is apparent that the complainant feels that her concerns about issues in her workplace were not addressed, and that the complaints of another employee were taken seriously and resulted in her dismissal.  While there are defects in the procedure that led to the complainant being dismissed, she has not presented any facts that lead to an inference that she was discriminated against.  More fundamentally however, she has not identified a heading under which she claims that the decision to dismiss her was discriminatory.

In the absence of any basic facts that could be regarded as “of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination,[1]” the responsibility for demonstrating that discrimination has not occurred does not shift to the respondent.

As the facts presented by the complainant do not give rise to an inference of discrimination, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

Failure to present basic facts that lead to a presumption that discrimination has occurred