Equality Officer Awards €40,000 in Gender Discrimination Case
Equality Officer Awards €40,000 to Anne Delaney in response to complaint made against the Irish Prison Service.
Anne Delaney took a case against the Irish Prison Service because she was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender in relation to promotion, training and conditions of employment.
In 2011, Ms. Delaney referred a complaint against her employer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Equality Tribunal. She alleged that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against her on grounds of gender when she applied for numerous posts over several years. Junior or less suitable/less experienced male candidates were appointed to the roles ahead of Ms. Delaney on all occasions.
After reviewing all of the submitted evidence, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant, Ms. Delaney, had established a link between the incidents that she complained about. The Equality Officer considered the incidents as separate manifestations of the same disposition to discriminate. The Equality Officer criticised the lack of transparency stating that she was unsure of the fairness of the selection procedures that were followed. There were no marking schemes available for review and no records to help her to assess what grounds the hiring decisions were based on. It also became apparent that the same senior personnel were involved in the selection process for all posts.
The Equality Officer’s investigation of the complaint concluded that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against Ms. Delaney on gender grounds when she applied for a gym instructor course in 2001, when she applied for an Operational Support Group post in 2009, when she was asked to step down from the post of Acting ACO in August 2010 and again in September 2010 when she applied for an allowance carrying post in the Detail Office.
As a result of her findings the Equality Officer tasked with making the decision on the case ordered that Ms. Delaney be appointed to the position of Acting ACO, and placed on the permanent roster for that position. The Equality Officer backdated this appointment to the 5th of August 2010 and ensured that all consequential employment rights and entitlements, including remuneration and recognition of service, were upheld.
The Equality Officer found that Ms. Delaney had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of her gender on numerous occasions during her career with the Irish Prison Service. The Equality Officer considered a compensatory award of €40,000 to be just and equitable in response to the distress suffered by Ms. Delaney as a result of the discrimination that she suffered. The Equality Officer felt as though €40,000 was a proportionate, effective and dissuasive sum to award. That component of the award was not in the form of remuneration and, consequently, was not subject to the PAYE/PRSI Code.
The Equality Officer found that the Irish Prison Service’s selection process for the allowance carrying post in the Detail Office (a post applied for by Ms. Delaney in September 2010) was deficient and non-compliant with Equality Legislation. The Equality Officer ordered that the Irish Prison Service ensure that a fair selection process be adopted in all future selections. She also ordered that the selection panel must be trained in the process and that it must set down the criteria in writing before embarking on the selection process. The Equality Officer also ordered that a marking scheme must be adopted and that the weighting should be given under each element. She also directed that notes must be retained for future reference.
DEC-E2013-155
DECISION NO: DEC-E/2013/155
Anne Delaney Vs Irish Prison Service
FILE NO: EE/2011/292
DATE OF ISSUE: 19th of November, 2013
Force Majeure Leave is less commonly discussed. The purpose of Force Majeure Leave is to provide limited, paid leave to enable an employee to deal with family emergencies resulting from injury or illness of a close family member. Force Majeure Leave applies where the immediate presence of the employee is urgent and indispensable (essential).
A close family member is defined as one of the following:
By its nature, an employee will not usually be able to give notice of the need to take Force Majeure Leave. The employee should, however, inform the employer (in writing) of reasons for taking the leave as soon as is reasonable practicable. The employee should provide details regarding the need for the leave and should confirm who the leave was taken in respect of.
Employers are obliged to keep a record of Force Majeure Leave taken by employees.
Employees will be entitled to:
- up to 3 days paid Force Majeure Leave in any consecutive 12 month period; or
- up to 5 days in a 36 consecutive month period.
Absence for part of a day is usually counted as a full day of Force Majeure Leave. Employees are entitled to receive pay for this type of leave. Employers can grant employees more than the number of days outlined above; however, they are not obliged to do so.
Employees are protected against Unfair Dismissal for taking Force Majeure Leave or for proposing to take it.
Death is not covered under Force Majeure Leave – Leave taken when a death occurs falls under Compassionate Leave and this tends to depend on employee contracts as well as custom and practice within the workplace. 
Without a doubt redundancies can be required to keep a business viable. Employers need to ensure that they make their decisions based on what's best for the business - not because they want to get rid of Danny the storeman who you feel hasn't done a tap for years. Before making people redundant, look at the business overall and see what areas are suffering a downturn, what areas are picking up, and how best you should react to changed circumstances.
A Selection Matrix will help to clarify your thoughts and take the personalities out of the decision - and also ensure that no-one can accuse you of using redundancy simply to remove people you don't like from your company. As a business owner or manager, you are entitled to make decisions that make business sense. So establish the logic of any decision before you make it.
Many employers have experienced theft by an employee in the workplace and, consequently, need to put certain measures in place in order to protect the profits of the company. It is the policy of some companies to search employees’ personal belongings when they are leaving the work premises. Employers can also reserve the right to search employee lockers and vehicles if this is agreed with the employee in advance.
If the employer wishes to have the option to carry out personal searches then it is crucial that all details surrounding these searches are clearly communicated to the employees in the contract of employment. Employees sign this contract and by doing so agree to the policies and procedures contained therein.
If an employer reserves the right to search an employee’s belongings then he or she must do so in a dignified manner – giving the employee appropriate levels of privacy. There are several significant procedures to observe when performing a personal search. The individual carrying out the search should be in a management position and, in the interest of clarity; the employees should be made aware in advance who it will be.
The location of the search is also something that should be considered very carefully – it is important to maintain consistency and to carry out searches in an area that offers privacy to the employee involved. Employees should be notified of the location of the search and, ideally, it should be out of the view of customers and other employees. The shop floor is not appropriate search setting – the canteen is not suitable either.
Ideally the area should be covered by CCTV in order to prevent a “he said she said” situation from arising. If this is not possible then a witness should be present so that this scenario is avoided. Either way discretion is of cardinal importance.
It is at times like these that Companies need to concentrate on their Human Resource functions even more. Some elements of HR, however, can be both complicated and time consuming – an enormous burden on Employers. In recent years the focus has moved towards legal compliance (which can be a minefield with all of the pieces of Employment Legislation currently in operation) and administrative processes that can slow down the productivity of the firm.
For SMEs in particular, it makes a lot of business sense to outsource HR tasks as firms specialising in the field can improve efficiency dramatically. Outsourcing allows Companies to offload work that isn’t part of their core business. It also saves money. At a Company that doesn’t have the funds to hire specialists outsourcing can allow it to gain access to a vendor’s services when required as well as the expertise and wealth of experience that they have accumulated – all at an affordable price.
While SMEs don’t have the same number of Employees as larger corporations and multinationals they still require the same HR elements on a smaller scale. For instance, they still need to recruit staff, they still need to abide by the vast array of Employment Laws and still require Employment Documentation (Contracts of Employment etc.).
HR Companies deal with all features of Human Resources comprehensively. They have a base of specialist Employees who are trained and experienced in all areas of Employment Law – meaning they are fully equipped to deal with any Employee Relations issues that arise in the workplace. Engaging the services of HR professionals gives Employers access to a bank of relevant knowledge and experience. HR Companies are well prepared to support or advise SMEs without costing an arm and a leg. They keep up-to-date with all changes in Irish Employment Legislation and are able to offer better support and guidance than the client can attain in-house. Navigating Government regulations can be a draining activity for Employers, - it can be a time consuming and complicated process, however, it is what HR advisors are trained to do.
HR firms can do a lot more than you might think – not alone do they have a top-class portfolio of skills, knowledge and experience concentrated in this specific area, they can offer a range of services and support at an extremely affordable price. Some HR Companies provide comprehensive services for as little as €100 per month – Hiring a HR Employee, even on a part-time basis, would cost far in excess of this. Similarly, many Employers currently engage the services of Solicitors to prepare Contracts of Employment and other Employment Documentation – this can also be an extremely costly process.
HR Companies prepare Employment Documentation for their clients and on top of that are there to advise on all individual Employee related issues – discrimination claims, rest and annual leave entitlements, disciplinary and redundancy procedures, dismissals, grievances and much more. Lots of Companies operate outside of office hours and so some HR Companies even provide 24/7 advice lines for their clients meaning a client will never have an anxious wait for an answer. HR firms also provide support to existing HR departments within Companies - the level of service and associated costs are completely dependent on the needs of the individual Company.
HR firms are growing in popularity. In the past outsourcing was often a difficult process because of the issues distance can sometimes create. Thanks to the advances in technology, however, dedicated HR experts are only a couple of clicks or a phone call away – so Human Resource emergencies can be dealt with on the spot. 
The recommendation, which is binding under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement, was issued on 18th September, 2013, and will affect the employment terms and conditions of approximately 10,000 workers. It is important to note that this agreement only applies to Home Helps who are employed by the HSE. Individuals employed by private companies or not-for-profit providers are not covered by this Labour Court recommendation.
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) has been campaigning since 2009 in a bid to secure adequate contracts and security of earnings for its members. The Union has welcomed the Labour Court decision which brings an end to the extensive system of zero-hour contracts. Paul Bell, SIPTU Health Division Organiser, stated that the agreement put the terms and conditions of Home Helps on a “firm and binding platform for the first time since the community service was established thirty years ago”.
A Zero-hours contract is a type of employment where an employee must be available for work but does not have specified or guaranteed hours or a formal roster. This can cause challenging circumstances for employees where the hours of work as well as earnings are unpredictable.