Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marina  Szatmari

County Kildare FM Radio Ltd, trading as Kfm Radio

Representatives

Self-represented

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-00070053-001

18/03/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st September 2023.  She worked in the “traffic” department.  Her last date of employment was 21st April 2025.  On the complaint form presented to the WRC, the Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the gender ground in relation to her conditions of employment.  She gave the most recent date of discrimination to be 18th March 2025.    The Respondent refutes the claim in its entirety.

The Complainant outlined that she felt there was discrimination, bullying and gossiping within the workplace and that it was difficult for her to deal with.  She felt she was not appreciated or respected.  There was a high volume of work, and she was under pressure all the time and she felt people were talking behind her back and this made it all worse.  There were issues regarding her work and every time she tried to explain why these issues were arising, Mr Ryan would not allow her to speak, and this made it difficult for her to communicate with her employer.  No matter what she was doing there was always something he was unhappy with. 

The Complainant asked Mr Ryan if she could work remotely on a part-time basis from 2pm to 5pm each day.  Mr Ryan said he would speak with Mr A (co-owner).  Following this request, the Complainant received an email dated 29th May 2024.  This email was composed by Mr Ryan to Mr A and was sent to the Complainant in error.  The content of the email led the Complainant to believe that Mr Ryan, Mr Dower and Mr A, who were all male, were all taking about her personal life and she felt this was totally unfair.  The Complainant had told Mr Ryan at the time of her request to work remotely of her monthly childcare costs, and in the email of 29th May 2024 which Mr Ryan wrote to Mr A, Mr Ryan said he did not believe the Complainant.  The Complainant outlined that she was treated differently because she was a woman and because of that email, and this was not professional.  She outlined that she never heard the management team ever gossip about anyone else.  The Complainant gave names of six other females, two of whom the Complainant said left the employment of the Respondent because they were not treated nicely either by Mr Ryan.  These two females also worked in the traffic department.  Two other females (named in evidence) were treated nicely by Mr Ryan.  They did not work in the traffic department.  The traffic department is a very busy department.  No males work in this department.  The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that she did not see her female colleagues in the traffic department being treated differently, it is only what they told her.  The Complainant said working in the traffic department was very stressful due to the high volume of work.  She worked late one night over Christmas 2024, but Mr Ryan told her there was no need to work past 5pm, but it was not possible to finish at 5pm because of the amount of work and she explained this to Mr Ryan.

The Complainant spoke to Mr Ryan at the time about his email of 29th May 2024.  He apologised.  The Respondent granted the request to work from home from 2pm to 5pm every day except Friday.  The Complainant was happy with this and had no difficulty coming on-site on Fridays as Friday was the busiest day.  Mr Ryan was happy with the arrangement and after a month he came to the Complainant and told her she could also work from home on Fridays from 2pm to 5pm. 

The Complainant outlined that she mainly reported to Mr Dower, and they had a good working relationship.  Mr Dower always helped her out when she was under pressure and he was very helpful.  Her issue was with Mr Ryan.  Mr Ryan spoke to her wrongly – his tone was loud and that made her feel stressed.  When he spoke to her, he would not give her a chance to respond.  In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant confirmed that Mr Ryan used the same tone with everyone – males and females – if he was not happy about something.  The Complainant added that maybe that was just the way he was, but she found it unpleasant and that she had a stressful life outside of work and Mr Ryan’s tone added to her stress. 

The Complainant then asked for full-time remote working because she loved the job and she couldn’t continue to work there because of Mr Ryan’s treatment of her.  The Complainant confirmed that if she was approved full-time remote working, she would probably have continued to work for the Respondent.  She was not saying that the Respondent’s refusal to allow her to work remotely on a full-time basis was gender discrimination.  

The Complainant outlined that on 18th March 2025 she was in Mr Ryan’s office.  She had been seeing her doctor for stress prior to this as she has a demanding personal life and she told the doctor that her work was stressful.  She was advised to take two weeks off.  She decided that she couldn’t continue to work for the Respondent after the two weeks leave and resigned.  The Complainant confirmed that it was the email that led her to think things were being said behind her back and she did have friendly conversations with Mr Ryan. 

Mr Ryan outlined that he wished to dispute everything said by the Complainant.  He submitted he was never aware that the Complainant had a medical issue, she never once complained of discrimination, and no one ever spoke behind her back.  It was normal management practice to discuss an application for remote working.  He was required to take the request to the Board of Management.  Mr Ryan outlined that he never once had a single argument with the Complainant or ever stopped her from speaking and they frequently engaged in friendly discourse.  He apologised to the Complainant at the time about his email of 29th May 2024 and explained the purpose of his email to Mr A – that he was consulting with a fellow Director and expressing his views on the application in advance of bringing it to the Board.  In the 18 to 20 years of business, the employees in the traffic department always worked on-site.  He felt that due to the demands of the job that it was best if the Complainant worked on-site.  However, following a discussion with the Board of Management, the request was approved, and he then extended it to five days without the Complainant requesting same as he was happy the arrangement was working fine.     

Mr Ryan outlined that he treated the Complainant and every other female employee with nothing other than respect and consideration.  He ensured the Complainant received full training and support.   He constantly reassured her that any issues arising would be dealt with and in that regard, Mr Dower extended assistance to the Complainant whenever issues arose.  When the Complainant made mistakes, he told her not to worry about them and that they could be sorted out, and there was never a bad word between him and the Complainant.  Mr Ryan opened all WhatsApp communications between him and the Complainant and highlighted that the communications were respectful and show that any request made by the Complainant was considered and facilitated.  Her salary was increased several times because of the central role she played in the business.  Mr Ryan submitted that ninety nine percent of the Complainant’s day-to-day interactions were with Mr Dower, and he was very supportive of the Complainant and assisted her if any work related or personal issues arose.   Whenever the Complainant needed time to attend her GP that was always facilitated without question.  When the mirror broke on her car, Mr Ryan went out and tapped it up for her.  When her vehicle broke down, he offered to give her an advancement which she could repay - this was indicative of the relationship they had.   

Mr Dower outlined that the Complainant did not work to 3am on 23rd December 2024.  The last email he received from the Complainant was at 5.45pm that day to say, “just sent everything across”, and there was no reply to his email until the morning of 24th December 2024.

Relevant Law

The Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 (“the Acts”) promote equality in the workplace and provide protection against discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. The Acts prohibit discrimination on nine grounds, including gender.  Discrimination occurs when one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated, on one of the nine grounds. The employee must demonstrate that they have been treated less favourably than a comparator.

Discrimination

Discrimination for the purposes of the Acts is defined at s 6 of the Acts as:

“(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances 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 subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned, (b) a person who is associated with another person— (i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and (ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are— (a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”). . . . ”

Section 8(1)(b) of the Acts prohibits discrimination in relation to conditions of employment.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is provided for at s 85A(1) of the Acts as follows:

“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.” 

The Complainant is required to establish facts from which discrimination can be inferred.  It is only when this burden is discharged does the burden shift to the Respondent to show that no unlawful discrimination took place. The Labour Court in Southern Health Board v. Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 considered the extent of this evidential burden on a complainant and held:

“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

Therefore, a complainant must establish both the primary facts upon which they rely and that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination.  In Valpeters v. Melbury Developments [2010] ELR 64, the Labour Court stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.

Findings

In the email of 24th May 2024, which Mr Ryan inadvertently sent to the Complainant, Mr Ryan stated to Mr A that he would not agree to the Complainant’s request to work from home.  He also expressed the view that he did not believe what the Complainant had told him regarding her financial situation.  This email, understandably, was upsetting to the Complainant.  Mr Ryan apologised about the email at the time.  The Board of Management agreed to grant the Complainant’s request to work from home and weeks later, unprompted, Mr Ryan extended the arrangement to include a Friday.  This arrangement continued until the Complainant left her employment on 21st April 2025.

Prior to the Complainant leaving her employment she had requested to work remotely on a full-time basis because of the way Mr Ryan was allegedly treating her.  The Complainant outlined that she felt Mr Ryan spoke to her differently because of her gender in that his tone was loud and this added to her existing stress.  The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that Mr Ryan also used this same tone with some of her other colleagues, some of whom were male.  She also felt that Mr Ryan was always raising concerns regarding her work.  It was common case that mistakes arose in relation to the Complainant’s work, and that Mr Dower did everything he could to support the Complainant in dealing with these issues.  It was not contested by the Complainant that Mr Ryan told the Complainant not to worry about the mistakes and that they could be sorted.

The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that she was not saying that the Respondent’s refusal to allow her to work remotely on a full-time basis was gender discrimination.  She also confirmed that if she was approved full-time remote working, she would probably have continued to work for the Respondent.    

I have carefully considered the evidence presented to the hearing, and I find the Complainant has not discharged the burden on her to establish facts from which discrimination on the gender ground may be presumed.  Therefore, the burden does not shift to the Respondent to show that no unlawful discrimination took place. 

I decide the Complainant was not discriminated against on the gender ground.

Discrimination. Gender.