Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tomasz  Pieronczyk

Earthmoving Wear Parts Limited

Representatives

Liam O’Brien BL, instructed by Katherina White Solicitors

Hugh Hegarty, Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00060678-001

21/12/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00060678-002

21/12/2023

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

CA-00060678-003

21/12/2023

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

CA-00060678-004

21/12/2023

The complainant was employed as a General Operative with the respondent from April 2007 until he resigned on 13th November 2023. He was earning €649.06 gross per week. He claims that he was constructively dismissed, was discriminated against on race grounds and did not receive equal pay. He further claims that he was not issued with a contract of employment until 18th September 2023, shortly before he resigned from the employment.

The respondent denies the complaints in full.

M O’Brien summarised the complaints made. After a case management discussion and a brief adjournment to take instructions, it was clarified that the comparator on the equal pay claim was a named staff member who was in employment within three years of the complaint.

Summary of Mr Pieronczyk’s Evidence

The complainant outlined the nature of the duties carried out. In or around 2017, he assisted a welder with indoor work which he said was unsafe. He said he always received standard pay despite the range of tasks carried out. He said he undertook dangerous work near fuel tanks and on one occasion he burnt his eyebrows due to the sparks. In or around this time, he complained about the tasks he was undertaking compared to other staff members. He said he was subjected to derogatory comments from colleagues on his Polish nationality. He said his daughter was mentioned in the derogatory comments on his nationality and the way of life in his home country. He said he made verbal complaints to the owner about his son, Mr. Aidan Long, who also worked in the business as he did not take any steps to address the derogatory comments. He said his complaints were not taken seriously and sometimes his manager engaged in behaviour which only served to encourage his colleagues.

On return from holidays in August 2023, his manager did not speak to him for three weeks and he gave instructions through colleagues. He said the work atmosphere was strange during this period. He felt alienated as other colleagues went to lunch without inviting him. He said when two Irish employees had worked for 10 years, there was a lunch celebration and yet nothing was done for him.

He said he was unaware of a grievance process, and he tried to sort things verbally. He was unaware of an employee handbook. He received his contract in September 2023 and was reviewing it to understand the contents. He did not make a complaint as he felt it would be of no benefit. He said the issues at work were causing him stress and sleep deprivation. He attended his GP and was put on medication. On his last day at work, he said that Mr. Aidan Long yelled and cursed at him. He discussed the issues with his wife, and he quit the job the next day. He was invited to a meeting four days later with Mr. Aidan Long and he explained the reasons he left. He said he was told to seek a psychotherapist.

He said, at the beginning of his employment, he was not given a van like other colleagues. He was allowed use a van for deliveries during working hours. He was able to bring a work van home in 2018. From 2015, he said that customers came to his house for packages and this was approved by Mr. Long.

He said he seen an online advertisement in October 2023 posted by a work colleague who was selling concrete blocks. These messages were put into evidence. He expressed an interest in buying these and the response was ‘Sorry I don’t deliver. I don’t sell to Roma Gypsie either’. He said he raised this with Mr. Long a few days later and he did nothing.

He was asked to do dangerous work on the roof which no other employees were asked to do. At the time of Covid when a container arrived from China, his colleagues joked openly that he should go inside as he was more resilient to infection because of the amount of vodka Polish drink. He clarified that although he had a car and fuel in storage at work, he removed these, when asked.

He said other staff were paid more and this was due to his nationality although he did not know for how long they were paid more.

The complainant’s representative outlined how the complainant had mitigated his loss by obtaining employment soon afterwards. His earnings were lower and he was without a pension contribution and yearly bonus. On the complainant’s behalf, he submitted that it took him over a year before he earned similar wages. 

Under cross examination by Mr. Hegarty, he was asked about his manager, his duties and dates he had personal use of the work van. He outlined his duties and insisted that he only had personal use of the van from 2018 and used it to get to and from work. He was questioned on the training provided, bonus payments (vouchers), use of equipment, and his treatment compared to colleagues.

It was put to him that he had received a verbal warning on his return from annual leave and that he had disengaged from colleagues. He denied receiving a verbal warning.

It was put to him that he never made a complaint about discriminatory treatment. He replied that he complained verbally about two colleagues, and that Mr. Long was aware of the behaviour of colleagues towards him and their favourable treatment. He accepted there was nothing in writing.

It was put to him that the contract contained the grievance process, and he did not make a complaint. He replied that he was never made aware of the grievance process and he was reviewing the contractual terms around this time.

He was asked about the online messaging on concrete blocks and if this was private and unrelated to work. He said the comments were from a work colleague and were related to his nationality. He said he reported this to Mr. Aidan Long a few days later.

Closing Submission

It was submitted that due to the conduct of the employer, the thresholds under the Act had been reached. The complainant could not make a complaint to Mr. Long as he had no faith in him due to the conduct allowed in the workplace. He had received no contract, so he had no reference point and was unaware of the grievance process.

On the equality complaints, the complainant had received minimal pay increases compared to colleagues. The pay of a comparator was higher who also worked 75% in the warehouse. It was submitted that the complainant was discriminated against due to the treatment he received and he was also victimised and suffered adverse treatment. The effects of the discrimination were that he suffered from stress and ultimately had to leave the employment. On the harassment complaint, Mr. O’Brien submitted that Mc Camley v. Dublin Bus [2016] 27 E.L.R.81, & Nail Zone Ltd v. A Worker EDA1023 as relevant case law. The complainant was seeking compensation that was effective, proportionate and dissuasive.   

Summary of Mr. Aidan Long’s Evidence

Mr. Long gave testimony of his involvement with the company which he took over when his father retired. There were 3/4 staff employed initially which decreased slightly during the financial crash in or around 2008. Additional staff were taken on in recent years although it is difficult to retain staff. He said he initially met the complainant in a car wash. He recognised he was a hard worker and offered him a job. He said everything was fine until the last few years when he noticed that he took issue when assigned work. He said new staff were not comfortable working with the complainant. He said the complainant’s role was in the warehouse doing orders and he also did some driving. He said that all staff including the complainant received updated contracts in September 2023. He said the complainant’s mood was difficult at this time. This culminated in an incident in October 2023 when he was asked to load a van, and he then left the site and said he was leaving. The complainant was then on sick leave, and he returned to the office for a meeting shortly afterwards. He said he thought the complainant was recording this meeting. He received a resignation letter a few days later. As per the HR Consultants advice, he invited the complainant for a meeting a few days later although nothing came of this.

On the comparators for equal pay, he said that one of these was a subcontractor with 30-years’ experience and the complainant may have assisted him with some light mechanical work. He said the another named employee was a Sales Rep who was mostly on the road with company transport. He said the another named employee was also in sales. Another employee was brought in to computerise inventory control and the other named comparator was a Branch Manager. He said a comparator got an increase in pay as he did not have the use of a work van. He said that the complainant had never raised the issue of equal pay.

He said that he was unaware of discriminatory comments and the complainant had never made a complaint. He said the complainant often asked for tools for personal use and this was always facilitated. He said there were no official lunches held on Fridays and the complainant did not raise this issue either. The complainant was provided with a company van for the last 8 years which was a benefit to him.

Under cross-examination by Mr. O’Brien, he was asked about the management structure in the company. He replied that his father was in his 70’s and was only occasionally on site. He did not accept that the complainant was promoted to Warehouse Supervisor. He confirmed that he was the complainant’s manager. He was asked about jokes regarding the complainant’s nationality. He replied that he never heard of these.

He was asked about the type of work the complainant was required to do such as unsafe work and if he was aware the complainant had back problems. He replied that any work of this nature was light mechanical work as the company does not repair machines, with the exception of the adjusting of chains for heavy vehicles. He was not aware the complainant had a back problem.

He was asked about unsafe work practices and was shown pictures of personnel and plant. He replied that some of the staff pictured were subcontractors and had their own insurance. There were regular safety audits, and the company had recently introduced independent annual safety inspections. He said that he had hired a company to do work on site and therefore the complainant should have nothing to do with that work.

He was asked about the complainant burning his eyebrows and if he said, ‘he was cooked like a sausage’. He replied that this was so far back he could not remember. He was shown a picture of the complainant with a patch over his eye. He replied that the complainant often worked on his own car and did not accept the company was liable. He was asked about the staff he hired and his friendship with them. He replied that the staff he hired were not close friends and that he had previously hired a Polish worker and that a Polish worker currently works for him. He added that rather than the complainant being isolated that new staff felt stonewalled and complained of a tense environment due to the complainant.

He was questioned on why no anti-bullying/harassment policies and training records were provided. He replied that the company had no previous complaints to the WRC and once this complaint was made, he spoke to staff to find out more.

He was asked about a comparator, and that the company agreed he was a suitable comparator. He replied that this comparator had two roles, as he was involved in sales. He was asked about the complainant’s treatment when he returned from leave in August 2023. He replied that he had stored personal fuel on site, and he was warned about this and advised to remove it, which he did. At that point, he had sought HR advice and was in the process of raising issues formally with him. It was put to him that he was abusive to the complainant on 12th November 2023, prior to the complainant leaving the site. He disagreed with this.

He was asked about the online message from another staff member selling concrete blocks, and the racial comments made. He replied that this was not brought to his attention by the complainant and he only became aware of it when the WRC complaint form was received. When asked by the Adjudication Officer if he investigated this, he replied that he spoke to the staff member concerned afterwards who said he was only joking. He was asked about the incident of the container delivery from China and the racial comments made. He replied that he did not make these comments.

Closing Submission

Mr. Hegarty submitted that the complaints spanned over 16 years. There were no documented complaints made by the complainant and no reference to any issue in the resignation letter. There was a single written document on concrete blocks during the cognisable period and this related to a private matter not involving the respondent.

The complainant had received pay increases and many benefits which were not referenced, and most incidents were out of time. The complainant was the only full-time Warehouse Operative, so his role was not comparable to other staff for pay purposes. The respondent had conceded that the contract did not issue on time although contests the significance of this on the complainant.         

CA-00060678-001- Constructive Dismissal Complaint

The Law

The definition of a constructive dismissal under the Act is:

 “dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) -

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer,…

The established test on constructive dismissal is the ‘contract test’ and/or the ‘reasonableness test’. The contract test concerns whether the employment contract between the parties has been honoured and, if not, whether a breach was so serious that it frustrated the relationship between the parties beyond repair. The reasonableness test allows for an objective assessment of the employer’s behaviour and to a lesser extent, the employee’s behaviour.

In Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 332, Lord Denning described the test as asking whether the employer ‘conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, and if so, the employee is justified in leaving.’

Application of Legal Tests to the Facts

Contract Test

The complainant has not claimed a breach of a specific contractual term, other than others were paid more than him. The complaint gave testimony that he was stressed, isolated, and consequently had to resign. A focus of his evidence was that he was asked to do unsafe work back in 2017/2018. He did not get use of a company van until 2018. On his return to work in August 2023, he felt the work atmosphere had changed. Around this time, the complainant was asked to remove personal fuel he had kept on site. Also, the respondent gave testimony that they were getting HR advice on the complainant’s behaviour towards new staff. In constructive dismissal cases, the onus is on the complainant to outline the circumstances that existed which left him with no option but to resign. There was no evidence presented that fundamental contractual terms were breached during the period prior to resignation, other than the contract being issued in September 2023.

Reasonableness Test

Testimony was given by the complainant of the following issues:

·        2013 Derogatory comments about his daughter.

·        2017/2018 Unsafe practices and assignment of work to him.

·        2017 Training on safe work practices commencing.

·        2018 Assigned work van.

·        2020 Racial comments when a container arrived from China.

·        August 2023 Return to work and isolation.

·        October 2023 Racial comments in online message.

Most of the above issues date back years. The 2020 comments were denied by the respondent witness. The return to work in August 2023 was followed by him being requested to remove personal items from the site. The complainant gave testimony that he was stressed at this time, and he resigned. He was offered a further meeting days later by the respondent. For the reasons outlined, I do not consider the employer’s behaviour as so unreasonable that he had no other option but to resign. There is insufficient evidence that the cause of the stress was due to the respondent.

Grievance Procedure

The respondent gave testimony that no grievance was submitted prior to the resignation. It is an established requirement in constructive dismissal cases to use the grievance procedure before resigning, if possible. Although the contract did not issue until mid-September, the complainant still had sufficient time prior to resigning on 13th November 2023 to raise a grievance. As no formal complaints were lodged, the employer was not on notice of the issues, now relied upon to explain the resignation.

Finding

I am satisfied from the evidence that there was no fundamental contract breach or that the respondent acted so unreasonably as to leave the complainant with no option but to resign. I am also persuaded by the absence of a formal grievance or issues in the resignation letter so that the respondent was on notice. There was also no formal grievance submitted to put the respondent on notice. For the reasons outlined, I find that the complainant was not constructively dismissed.

CA-00060678-002- Terms and Conditions of Employment

The Act provides for the employer to issue to new employee’s certain statements of terms of employment. The respondent conceded at the hearing that a statement of terms of employment nor a 5-day statement of employment terms issued to the complainant on time as prescribed in the Act.

In accordance with Section 7 of the Act, I declare that the complaint is well founded.

As per Section 7 of the Act, there is provision for compensation of such amount as the adjudicator considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration.

Although the complainant received his terms in September 2023, I consider the breaches of the Act to be serious as the complainant was denied his statutory right to the terms of his employment for practically all his employment. The lack of an employment contract offered no clarity during his employment.

As this is a significant breach, I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 3 weeks’ pay which is €1,947.18. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00060678-003- Discrimination/Victimisation/Harassment

The Law

The Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 (“the Acts”) promote equality in the workplace and provide protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The Acts prohibit discrimination on nine grounds, including race. Discrimination occurs when one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. In general, a complainant must prove less favourable treatment as compared to another person in a similar position to the complainant.

Section 85A(1) of the Acts provides:

“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, harassment or victimisation can be inferred. It is only when this burden is discharged does the burden shift to the respondent to show that no unlawful discrimination or victimisation 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.”

Findings on Discrimination Complaint

The cognisable period for the complainant to show that discrimination occurred is from 22nd June 2023 up to 21st December 2023. The complainant gave testimony of how he was treated differently as a Polish national than other colleagues. This treatment included being assigned dangerous and difficult tasks which he claims were not assigned to colleagues. This treatment occurred in 2017/2018. Prior to this, he claims that in 2015/2016, he was not invited to lunch although the respondent gave testimony that these were not official work lunches. The complainant also gave testimony that he was treated differently when he was not assigned a work van until 2018. He also relies on an incident during covid in 2020 when he was requested to enter the container first. All the above issues are outside of the cognisable period.

In August 2023, the complainant returned from holiday and gave testimony that the workplace atmosphere had changed. He also described an incident on the loading of a van which culminated in him leaving the site. The respondent gave testimony of concerns around this time and requested the complainant to remove personal items from the workplace. The respondent said they also had concerns with his behaviour towards new staff. Having considered these events within the cognisable period, there is insufficient evidence of primary facts to raise a presumption of discrimination. There was no evidence presented to connect the most recent alleged treatment to the previous incidents some years ago. The complainant has not established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against on race grounds. I decide this complaint is not well founded.

The complainant has not established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against on promotion. I decide this complaint is not well founded.

The complainant has not established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against on training, as the incidences or work practices/training are well outside the cognisable period. I decide this complaint is not well founded.

The complainant has not established a prima facie case on conditions of employment (the equal pay claim is dealt with separately). I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Victimisation Complaint

Section 74 (1) of the Act states-

“victimisation” shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to —

(a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,

(b) any proceedings by a complainant,

(c) an employee having represented or otherwise supported a complainant,

(d) the work of an employee having been compared with that of another employee for any of the purposes of this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act,

(e) an employee having been a witness in any proceedings under this Act or the Equal Status Act 2000 or any such repealed enactment,

(f) an employee having opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the said Act of 2000 or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment, or

(g) an employee having given notice of an intention to take any of the actions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs

The test and case law for establishing whether there has been victimisation is as follows-

In Department of Defence v Barrett EDA 1017 the Labour Court stated-

“Protection against victimisation is a vital component in ensuring the effectiveness of anti-discrimination law. It enables those who considered themselves wronged by not being afforded equal treatment to raise complaints without fear of retribution. Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC requires Member States to introduce into their legal systems such “measures as are necessary to protect employees against dismissal or other adverse treatment by employers as a reaction to a complaint within the undertaking or to any legal proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment”

That obligation is given effect in Irish law by s.74(2) of the Acts. The definition of victimisation contained in that section contains essentially three ingredients. It requires that: -

1. The Complainant had taken action of a type referred to at s.74(2) of the Acts (a protected act),

2. The Complainant was subjected to adverse treatment by the Respondent, and,

3. The adverse treatment was in reaction to the protected action having been taken by the Complainant.

Protected Act

There is a conflict in evidence as to whether a verbal complaint was made. The complainant gave evidence that he raised issues verbally. The respondent denies that any complaints were made. In the resignation letter of 10th November 2023, it would be expected that if there were previous complaints made that there would be some written reference to these by the complainant. I am not convinced that a protected act was made and therefore this complaint cannot succeed.

For the reasons outlined, I find this complaint is not well founded.

Harassment Complaint

The Law

Harassment is defined as any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds being conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. Such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.

14A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, where—

(a) an employee (in this section referred to as "the victim") is harassed or sexually harassed either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace") or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is—

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer,

(ii) the victim’s employer, or

(iii) a client, customer or other business contact of the victim’s employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it,

Finding

The complainant gave testimony that on 5th October 2023 he messaged a work colleague on-line in relation to the sale of concrete blocks. The response by the colleague to his enquiry was ‘Sorry I don’t deliver. I don’t sell to Roma Gypsie either’.

Mr. Long gave testimony that he only became aware of this when he received the WRC Complaint Form. He clarified in evidence that he spoke to this employee about what he had written online. As his response was that it was a joke and banter, Mr. Long took no further steps. The complainant gave testimony that he raised his treatment and this issue with Mr. Long, although there is no documentary proof of this.

I find the comments to be ‘harassment’ as defined in the Act which occurred when the complainant was employed by the respondent. Although the respondent claims that this was a private matter and unrelated to work, the act refers to ‘or otherwise in the course of his employment…’.

Mr O’Brien for the complainant, relies on Mc Camley v. Dublin Bus [2016] 27 E.L.R.81 & Nail Zone Ltd v. A Worker [2010] EDA1023. I have reviewed these Labour Court decisions. The issue is whether this occurred in the course of their employment. They both knew each other from the same employment with knowledge that the complainant was Polish. Mr. Long regarded the exchange of messages as linked to his business as he subsequently sought an explanation from the worker concerned after he became aware of it. It is also common practice that those in the trade will assist each other with accessing tools and materials, within reason. Although these were online messages, there was a sufficient connection through work for this to be ‘in the course of employment’, and in accordance with Mc Camley. I am also persuaded by the fact that the worker who sent the racial comments engaged with his employer and did not rely on the comments as private.

For the reasons outlined, I decide that the complainant was harassed due to his race.

Redress

As per Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR1891, I need to ensure that compensation is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. This incident occurred in October 2023, and the complainant did not refer to it in his resignation letter in November 2023. The respondent denies an awareness of the racial comments until after the complainant had left the employment. On becoming aware he took some steps, as outlined. He accepted the explanation as a joke/banter even though as per the Act and Code of Practice, it is not the intent of the perpetrator but the effect on the employee which is determinative.

After his initial inquiries, even though the complainant had resigned at that stage, he took no proactive steps to sanction the perpetrator or renew contact with the complainant. Despite this, it would be too harsh to impose a severe penalty on the respondent due to the complainant not putting him on written notice of the offensive message. Therefore, I need to consider that the respondent was not aware of the effects these comments had on the complainant.

I decide the complaint is well founded and order the respondent to pay compensation of €6,000 to the complainant. For clarity, this award is compensation and is unrelated to wages.

CA-00060678-004- Equal Pay Complaint

Unequal pay, based on any of the discriminatory grounds, is prohibited as between workers who are employed by the same employer, and carry out like work. The complainant submission included several comparators including a contractor. At the hearing, it was necessary to confine the comparator to the Irish worker who carried out 75% of their work in the warehouse. As no job descriptions or documents were put into evidence, the relevant evidence is the testimony and pay slips submitted.

The respondent reasoned that the use of a company van negated against the complainant receiving the same hourly rate. The other reason was that the comparator had a minor role in sales. There is no conflict that 75% of the comparators job was in the warehouse. It is also the case that these are historical matters as the complainant has resigned from the employment.

Having reviewed the testimony and payslips, I am not satisfied with the respondent’s reasoning as to why the two employees were paid on different rates. Although the comparator may have spent time on sales, this is not persuasive enough that they did not perform equal work. From the payslips submitted, the comparator was paid €2 more per hour on 6th January 2023. As the Act restricts an award of equal pay to 3 years from the date the complaint was received by the WRC, any retrospective correction of pay applies from 22nd December 2020. I estimate that the complainant’s pay requires correction for 106 weeks which is a gross payment of €8,215.00.

I decide the complaint is well founded and order the respondent to pay €8,215.00 gross wages to the complainant.

CA-00060678-001- Unfair Dismissals Complaint

I decide that the complainant was not constructively dismissed. I find there was no unfair dismissal.

CA-00060678-002- Terms and Conditions of Employment Complaint

I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 3 weeks’ pay which is €1,947.18. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is unrelated to wages.

CA-00060678-003- Discrimination  On Race Grounds Complaints

Discrimination on Race

I decide that the complaint of discrimination on race grounds is not well founded.

Discrimination on Promotion

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination on Training

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination on Conditions of Employment

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Victimisation Complaint

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Harassment Complaint

I decide the complaint is well founded and order the respondent to pay compensation of €6,000.00 to the complainant. For clarity, this award is compensation and is unrelated to wages.

CA-00060678-004- Equal Pay Complaint

I decide the complaint is well founded and order the respondent to pay €8,215.00 gross wages to the complainant.

Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Equal Pay