A Tale of Discrimination (Vera’s Story)

discrimination story

Vera loved rabbits.

She used to remind me of Lennie in Steinbeck’s short novel, “Of Mice and Men”, although, unlike Lennie, she was sharp as a tack.

Vera started working in retail when she was 15, straight out of school.

She worked her way up in the retail industry-mainly small shops- and found herself as manager of a shop on the northside of Dublin after 35 mostly good years.

She got on great with her employer, Jimmy, who owned the shop, and he, like Vera, was “old school”.

He was a kind man and was happy to generously give Vera time off for family events or hospital appointments, which Vera never took advantage of.

When Jimmy came to tell her that he had sold the shop she was a little bit anxious, because she didn’t know what to expect from the new owner, or how things might change.

Her worst fears were soon realised when she met her.

Geraldine was a go-goeting, ambitious young woman of 25 who had been given a leg up in her aspiring entrepreneurial career by her father. He guaranteed the loan to buy the shop, and gave her the deposit,too.

Soon after taking over the shop Geraldine dropped a few remarks to Vera which Vera thought were inappropriate.

Little remarks like, “we will have to get our costs down, Vera, especially the wages bill”, and “how long do you think you will continue working?”, and “can we manage with less full timers?”

All the little digs worried Vera.

A few months after the change of ownership Vera’s GP recommended that she have some minor surgery carried out as the best way to deal with an ongoing medical issue she had.

Vera eventually bit the bullet and went in for the surgery.

The surgery was successful and her GP was happy with the outcome. However, he recommended Vera take it easy for 3 or 4 weeks when she went back to work-no heavy lifting, no pulling or dragging heavy stock, and to avoid stretching too vigorously.

Vera was fed up at home and was one of those people who had to be at something; she just couldn’t sit still for any longer than an hour.

So she was looking forward to going back to work.

She went to Geraldine to let her know when she would be back and what her GP had recommended by way of an easing back into the more vigorous parts of her job.

Vera was amazed with Geraldine’s reaction.

“Vera, I am not happy to let you back to work until you are fully fit to do your job in its entirety. Why don’t you wait a few more weeks until you are fully recovered?”, she said.

“But I want to go back to work now”, said Vera, “and the doctor said it would be good for me, provided I avoid some tasks for a few weeks”.

The conversation ended on a sour note, and Vera was stunned.

The next day she received an email from Geraldine saying that she could not let her return to work until she was fully fit. In her email she mentioned “health and safety” and “insurance” and “duty of care to employees”.

Vera was not going to take this lying down, she had given 35+ years of service in a job she loved and was not going to be “put out to grass like this”, as she saw it.

Vera came to see me and we had a good chat. Even though she was a small lady, bird like, she had a real steel about her. She told me she was brought up in Cabra, one of a family of 11, and she told me you soon had to learn how to stand up for yourself.

She said when she was 11 or 12 she used to go down to Croke Park on big match days and sell stuff to the crowd going to the GAA matches: apples, oranges, paper hats (the ones which, if it rained, all the colours ran out of), flags, you name it.

I told her about a case I had read about, where a man-I think he worked in a quarry in Galway- who wanted to return to work after brain surgery was dismissed and brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds of disability.

The man could only work for 20 hours per week on his return, on his doctor’s recommendation, but the employer wanted him to return to the full 39 hours.

They could not reach agreement so the employer dismissed him. The employee brought a claim under equality legislation and claimed that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability, and the employer has failed, contrary to his legal obligation, to make “reasonable accommodation” for his return to work.

The worker was awarded €40,000 by the Equality Tribunal. (You can read more about that case here.)

It struck Vera and me that her situation appeared to be very similar to this man’s. No two cases are the same, of course, but there are certain guiding principles you can draw from cases with similar facts.

So, Vera decided to bring a claim against the employer and her claim was that she was being discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of disability, and the employer has failed, contrary to the Employment Equality Acts to make reasonable accommodation for her return to work.

Vera felt she was being effectively dismissed by the employer’s refusal to let her take it easy for a few weeks in relation to a handful of tasks.

Vera was so angry about the way she was treated that she resigned. Not long afterwards, Vera had a new position in retail, but she was not going to let this lie.

We submitted her claim to the WRC, and felt Vera had a really strong case. Close to the day of the hearing the case settled and Vera accepted a nice settlement in relation to her claim.

She felt vindicated. She was working away in her new job, but felt she had to take a stand in relation to the way she was treated, and the lack of respect shown to her by Geraldine.

Takeaway

There are 9 grounds of discrimination in Irish employment law, and disability is one of them. However, the definition of a “disability” is so broad, that even a runny nose has been held to be one.

A disability can be temporary or permanent, and can include an addiction to alcohol or drugs.

The monetary penalties for discrimination are high: up to 2 years’ remuneration for the employee from the WRC and the Circuit Court can award up to its jurisdictional limit.

And Vera?

She is working away, managing another shop, and happy to be back in full swing having made a full recovery from her surgery and the way she was treated.

How Safe Are You From Making This Costly Mistake?

workplace bullying

It’s an easy mistake to make.

I see it all the time, to be honest.

One day recently, I had to say this to a nice young woman who came to me for employment law advice:

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I think you are wasting your time with this”.

And to a man a few days before: “I have to tell you that I think you are in danger of digging a big hole for yourself. My advice is that you forget about this and go back to work, keep the head down, and do your best.”

And another: “You asked me for a straight answer and that is what I am about to give you: forget about this. Accept it, and move on, or you are in danger of talking yourself out of a job”.

And “Sometimes, you may be treated unfairly or unprofessionally, but that doesn’t mean there is a legal cause of action or claim”.

It appeared to me that there was a growing number of people who, one way or another, left my office disappointed.

It’s inevitable that you begin to second guess yourself.

I began to question myself.

Was my judgment off: was I too conservative?

Was I overlooking potential causes of action?

Was I expecting too much from employees?

And too little from employers?

But when I thought about it I noticed it was not just in relation to employment law that I’ve had to say these things, either. Family, litigation, personal injury, property, landlord and tenant.

And then I read the Supreme Court decision in the alleged bullying case involving a special needs assistant, Una Ruffley, and the Board of management of the primary school in Kildare where she worked.

And one of the Judges seemed to articulate precisely what I had been saying to the various hopeful employees who came to me.

Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, in his decision, said “Not every wrong, even one which results from unfair or unfortunate circumstances, gives rise to a cause of action.”

Another way of saying this, in plain English, is “shit happens”.

And that is what I was saying to the different people I have referred to above.

I was doing is as diplomatically as I could, but I had to call a spade a spade.

It’s human nature that nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news. And nobody wants to let down or disappoint prospective clients.

But I would be doing them a grave disservice if I did not give my honest opinion about whether each person had a claim, a “cause of action”, or not.

Some people take the bad news well, some take it badly.

But one unfortunate feature that I encounter on a too frequent basis is the person who appears to have become obsessive about their issue, no matter what it is.

They simply won’t let it go, even when staring at the uncomfortable facts.

The big problem in this situation is that the biggest sufferer of an unhealthy obsession is the person who has it.

Because it can lead to their well being and mental health being seriously affected.

Not only have they suffered some distress or hardship or rough treatment at the hands of another, but now they run the risk of compounding the damage and hurt by their refusal to put it behind them and let it go.

It is striking, and sad, how some situations become so personal to the individual that they simply cannot see the damage they will do to themselves if they don’t let it go.

In conclusion, sometimes you need to stand up and fight.

But sometimes you need to retreat and live to fight another day, when the odds in your favour shift to make it worthwhile.

And don’t ever fall into the trap of winning a battle, and losing the war.

Bullying in the Workplace in Ireland-Supreme Court Raises the Bar to Successful Claims?

workplace bullying

Has the Supreme Court raised the bar to successful bullying claims with this decision delivered on 26th May, 2017?

Are you being bullied at work? A lot of people complain to me about bullying.

You would not believe the large number of queries I received from people about bullying, and allegations of being bullied in work.

Many of them are, quite frankly, misguided and do a disservice to genuine victims of bullying in the workplace.

I have written quite a few posts about bullying in the workplace, such as

  1. Workplace bullying and non-physical injuries-what you need to prove
  2. The High Court Ruffley case (Una Ruffley v Board of Management of St. Anne’s School).

I also wrote about the Court of Appeal overturning the High Court decision in the Ruffley case.

This case has recently been dealt with by the Supreme Court in May, 2017, and as the Supreme Court is the highest ranking Court in Ireland what it has held in the Ruffley case is well worth taking a look at.

The Court itself has held that “this novel case will set a benchmark for all bullying claims.”

So, if you feel you are being bullied and are considering a claim on the grounds of bullying in the workplace you need to consider carefully what the Supreme Court has to say.

The background to the case is that Una Ruffley was a special needs assistant in a primary school in Kildare, St. Annes. In January, 2010 she was disciplined by her employer, the Board of Management of the School.

Una Ruffley claimed that this disciplinary procedure was part of a bullying campaign against her, and had suffered a personal injury of a psychological nature as a result.

Ms Ruffley commenced a personal injury claim in the High Court and was awarded over €255,000 euros in 2014.

Judge O’Neill in that case held that she had been bullied as she was subjected to repeated inappropriate behaviour which affected her dignity at work, and Judge O’Neill accepted the definition of bullying as set out in para 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 (S.I. No. 17/2002) as follows:

“Workplace Bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying.”

Appeal

This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal and Judge O’Neill’s finding in her favour was overturned by 2 to 1. The reasons for this was the finding that in this particular case the Board of Management had not been guilty of the type of repetitive inappropriate conduct which undermined the right to dignity in the workplace for a period of over one year as was found by the trial judge.

One of the Judges stated that the absence of fair procedures on its own could constitute bullying; another Judge held that the behaviour had to be repeated and reasonably proximate in time.

These are obviously two completely different, contradictory opinions. For this reason, the appeal to the Supreme Court was watched closely by legal professionals because it was hoped that the Supreme Court would clarify the actual test of what constituted repeated, inappropriate behaviour-that is, bullying-from a practical perspective.

Appeal to Supreme Court

The Court agreed that the test for bullying, as set out in Quigley v Complex Tool and Moulding Limited [2008] IESC 44, was still the correct test. This means the conduct complained of must be

  • Repeated
  • Inappropriate
  • Undermining of the dignity of the employee at work.

The Court on this occasion held that each part of this test must be fulfilled on each occasion of behaviour which is argued constitutes a pattern of bullying, and found against Ms Ruffley and held that this case was not one that should have attracted damages.

The Court also distinguishes ordinary management from bullying, and holds that there is a certain degree of robustness expected from employees.

It is clear from this case that the bar over which an employee must jump to prove bullying has been raised.

The Court held:

Correction and instruction are necessary in the functioning of any workplace and these are required to avoid accidents and to ensure that productive work is engaged in. It may be necessary to point to faults. It may be necessary to bring home a point by requesting engagement in an unusual task or longer or unsocial hours. It is a kindness to attempt to instil a work ethic or to save a job or a career by an early intervention. Bullying is not about being tough on employees. Appropriate interventions may not be pleasant and must simply be taken in the right spirit. Sometimes a disciplinary intervention may be necessary.”

It also clarifies that the conduct required to prove the undermining of the employee’s dignity at work must be outrageous, unacceptable, and exceeding all bounds tolerated by decent society.

Justice Charleton, in his decision, states that “the test for bullying is of necessity to be set very high”.

It appears from the Supreme Court decision in this case that it has succeeded in setting the bar high.

You can read the full decision ( Ruffley -v- The Board of Management of Saint Anne’s School, [2017] IESC 33) of the Supreme Court here-it is well worth a read.

Interestingly, Mr. Justice Peter Charleton states that

“Not every wrong, even one which results from unfair or unfortunate circumstances, gives rise to a cause of action.Given that the test for bullying is of necessity to be set very high, these are not circumstances which can attract damages.”

A Constructive Dismissal Story (Agnieszka’s Story)

constructive dismissal story

There’s a Polish woman (Agnieszka) from outside Maynooth who came to me one day about 15 months ago.

She told me a story I found hard to believe.

But I can assure you it was true.

She told me she came to Ireland about 12 years ago and got a job in a shop. Agnieszka was excellent at her job, friendly with customers and colleagues, worked hard and did everything that was required of her.

She got on well in the job, so much so that after 27 months she was promoted to manager of the shop. She continued to do a good job, and got great feedback from her bosses and from the shop’s customers, and her colleagues.

Then, approximately 6 weeks before she came to visit me, she was visited in her shop by the company accountant/financial controller (Phillip) and a director (Sinead).

“We need to speak to you urgently Agnieszka”, they said.

“No problem”, Agnieszka responded. “Nothing serious, I hope?”

“Actually, there is a serious problem which we have just uncovered. Can we speak to you in the store room?”

“Sure”.

Agnieszka was puzzled, but not yet overly concerned.

Once they entered the storeroom Phillip and Sinead quickly got down to business.

They told Agnieszka the gross profit margin for the last 6 months in her store was unacceptably low, and had dropped from 23% to 19%, and they concluded there must be a “serious problem” in the shop. As Agnieszka was the manager they were there to get an explanation from her.

Agnieszka was completely flummoxed and taken aback. It was like a bus had hit her. She noticed, too, that the demeanour of Phillip and Sinead was less than the usual friendly tone they adopted with her.

They told her they were going to have a meeting the next day at head office, and Agnieszka was to be there, but she was not told what type of meeting it was.

Agnieszka spent that evening and next morning worrying about the issue raised, and what might have caused the problem of the falling profit margin.

Could it have been an error with the stocktake? Could it have been a mistake in entering a delivery or invoice?

She was also concerned about the change in tone, and the way that Phillip and Sinead had spoken to her when they came to the shop.

The next day Agnieszka waited anxiously in reception at head office at 2.30 pm, waiting for the meeting.

She chatted with Sheila, the receptionist, trying to take her mind off the anxiety she felt in the pit of her stomach.

When Sinead and Phillip arrived, they immediately said to Agnieszka, “you can bring in Sheila to the meeting, as a witness”.

“Why do I need a witness?” Agnieszka asked.

“You might be more comfortable”, Phillip replied.

Agnieszka went in alone as she did not know Sheila very well, and, besides, she could not understand why she would need a witness if they were only going to have a meeting to try to sort out the apparent problem with one profit margin report.

Once inside the office it was clear that Phillip and Sinead had one thing in mind: Agnieszka’s resignation from her job.

They produced a sheet of paper, typed up, with a space at the bottom for Agnieszka’s signature.

It was a resignation letter. Agnieszka was stunned, and became upset.

They quickly pointed out that if she resigned they would give her a reference, and she could get another job easily enough; if she didn’t then there would be no reference and she would have great difficulty getting a job in Ireland again.

Agnieszka was astounded at the turn of events. She could not believe it. It seemed like a bad dream.

She had done nothing wrong, was in the job 12 years, had worked extremely hard and showed great diligence and loyalty, and, finally, it came down to this.

She refused to sign. No way was she signing that letter of resignation, it would look terrible, and she needed this job.

Her husband, Wojciek, had recently lost his job in a warehouse and she was the only breadwinner in her household, and they had two young children.

But the pressure mounted, the afternoon dragged on, the veiled threats became more explicit, and Agnieszka was reduced to tears.

After what seemed like the afternoon, but was probably no more than 1.5 hours, Agnieszka relented in order to have the meeting and the pressure stop, and just get out of there and go home,  and she signed her resignation letter.

Phillip and Sinead shook hands with her, reassured her she had done the “right thing”, and wished her well for the future, told her she would have her P45 and final pay within days.

The next day Agnieszka could not believe what had happened, and had a sick feeling in her stomach for weeks.

She began to do a bit of research online, and Googled terms like “unfair dismissal”, “constructive dismissal”, “forced resignation”, etc. The more she learned, the angrier she got.

Eventually, after some prompting from friends and Wojciek, she made an appointment to see me to see what her rights were, and what redress she may have, if any.

Constructive Dismissal?

It seemed to me that she had a strong case to bring a claim for constructive dismissal. The factors that would support her claim were:

  • The absence of a fair disciplinary procedure,
  • not knowing in advance she was being invited to a disciplinary hearing,
  • not being told she was entitled to representation,
  • not being given the chance to put her side of the story,
  • being pressured into resigning her employment,
  • not being given a letter in advance setting out the allegation in sufficient details that she could challenge it
  • being threatened with no reference if she did not resign and was dismissed.

I submitted a claim to the WRC for constructive dismissal and we were eventually given a hearing date approximately 20 weeks later.

Just before the hearing, a solicitor acting for the employer in this case contacted us and offered a derisory “nuisance” type sum of money to settle the claim.

I had to advise Agnieszka that I could not advise her to accept is, although it was entirely her decision.

She agreed with me, though, and the case went ahead on the scheduled day.

Constructive dismissal cases can be difficult cases to win because the burden of proof of an unfair dismissal shifts from the employer to the employee-remember it is the employee who has terminated the employment in a constructive dismissal case, not the employer.

There are certain required recommendations I would advise any employee contemplating bringing a claim for constructive dismissal. The most important one is that the employee should, if possible, exhaust any internal grievance procedure before resigning.

This did not happen in Agnieszka’s case. So, this was a concern, but not fatal as there is decided case law on this point which supports the proposition that it is not always essential.

Another factor she had to face in the hearing was she was the only witness to support her version of events. On the employer’s side Phillip and Sinead were going to put forward a consistent and different account of what happened at the fateful meeting where Agnieszka resigned.

The case itself was a tough one for Agnieszka because she had no idea whether the WRC adjudicator believed her account or the employer’s, and she was, to a large extent, on her own even though she had me with her to represent her.

She was still the only witness on her side of the dispute, though, and that’s never easy. But she was happy to get a formal forum where she could put her version of events, and describe how she felt about the way she was treated.

She was relieved when the whole ordeal was over, and she said she felt a certain liberation from having the chance to tell her story to an impartial adjudicator, even if she did not win the case.

Thankfully, that adjudicator was sufficiently impressed with her story and the explanations of what had happened, accepted that she was very poorly treated, and that she was constructively dismissed.

He also made a generous award-approximately 9 months’ salary-and was very pleasing to Agnieszka.

She was delighted, and felt vindicated.

She had been badly and unlawfully treated, stood up for herself, put her case before an independent adjudicator at significant personal cost, and the adjudicator had agreed with her.

Conclusion

It is worth repeating that constructive dismissal cases can be difficult to win, and each case will be judged on its particular facts and circumstances.

The facts of Agnieszka’s case were strong enough to support the argument that she was put under significant duress to resign and she was not given fair procedures or natural justice. For those reasons, she won her case.

I hear from people every week, however, who are considering quitting their job and wondering whether they will have a claim for constructive dismissal.

I always tell them the same thing, which is summed up in these two articles on my website:

The Statutory Penalties for Breaches of Employment Law in Ireland

Are you aware of the range of penalties that are set down in legislation in Ireland for breaches of employment law?

There is a large number of statutes/acts dealing with all aspects of employment law in Ireland. These acts cover overnighting from unfair dismissal to working time to payment of wages to health and safety to annual leave and rest breaks, etc.

In addition to these penalties and employee can always go to the Civil Courts for common law claims such as breach of contract, personal injury, negligence, health and safety breaches, breach of constitutional rights, etc. That is another day’s work.

This piece is going to look at the penalties and redress for employees as set out in statute, that is, the various acts on the statute book.

Regardless of whether you are an employer or employee, you should find it useful.

Unfair Dismissal/Constructive Dismissal

The redress is set out in section 7, Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and in summary comprises

  1. Reinstatement or
  2. Reengagement or
  3. Compensation of up to 104 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the financial loss due to the dismissal.

If there is no financial loss an employee can be awarded 4 weeks’ remuneration.

Working Time/Rest Breaks

The penalties are set out in section 27, Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997:

  1. Require the employer to comply with the relevant provision of the act
  2. Compensation of up to 2 years’ remuneration.

Written Terms of Employment

Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment within 2 months of starting can be punished as set out in section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The WRC adjudicator can order the employer to give the statement to the employee and can award up to 4 weeks’ remuneration by way of compensation.

Protected Disclosures/Whistleblowing

The Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 provides severe penalties in section 11 for dismissal of an employee for making a protected disclosure:

  • 260 weeks (5 years) remuneration

The employee can also bring a tort action for having suffered detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, as set out in section 13, Protected Disclosures Act, 2014, and can seek an order from the Circuit Court as set out in section 11 of the act preventing dismissal prior to the determination of a claim for unfair dismissal.

Payment of Wages

Section 6, Payment of Wages act, 1991 sets out the penalties for breaches of the act. These include

  • Compensation of the net amount of the wages which would have been paid the previous week prior to the deduction/non payment or
  • Twice the net amount of wages that would have been paid to the employee in the week immediately preceding the deduction or payment

Minimum Notice

Compensation can be awarded pursuant to Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973: “may award to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason of the default of the employer.”

Agency Workers

Penalties for breach of Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 are set out in schedule 2 of the Act. It states that the WRC can order rectification of whatever breach of the act is proved, including reengagement or reinstatement, and/or order compensation of up to 2 years’ remuneration be paid to the employee.

Adoptive Leave, Carer’s Leave, Parental Leave

Breach of the adoptive leave provisions of the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995 can see compensation of up to 20 weeks’ remuneration awarded to the employee, or the WRC making whatever directive order it feels is expedient in the circumstances.

Carer’s leave: a WRC adjudicator can award a grant of carer ’ s leave to the employee of such length to be taken at such time or times and in such manner as the adjudication officer may specify, and/or up to 26 weeks’ compensation.(Carer’s Leave Act, 2001).

Parental Leave and Force Majeure Leave:  an adjudicator can award (a) the grant to the employee of parental leave of such length to be taken at such time or times and in such manner as may be so specified, and/or compensation of up to 20 weeks’ remuneration.(Parental Leave Act, 1998).

Maternity leave: breaches of the employees entitlement can lead to an award of compensation of up to 20 weeks’ remuneration and or grant of the leave to which the employee is entitled.(Maternity Protection act, 1994).

Transfer of Undertakings

Complaints about breaches of S.I. No. 131/2003 – European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 can lead to compensation being awarded depending on which regulation has been breached.

The compensation can range from a maximum of 4 weeks’ remuneration to 2 years’ remuneration.

Part Time Workers

The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 is the relevant act for part time workers.

It provides that the WRC adjudicator can require the employer to comply with the relevant provision and/or award 2 years’ remuneration to the employee.

Fixed Term Workers

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 is the relevant act for fixed term workers. Section 14 of the revised act provides the WRC adjudicator can:

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to reinstate or reengage the employee (including on a contract of indefinite duration), or

(d) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years ’ remuneration in respect of the employee ’ s employment.

Redundancy

The Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, section 7 sets out the employee’s right to a redundancy payment. Section 39 allows you to appeal the amount you have been awarded.

The Protection of Employment Act, 1977 also obliges the employer to inform and consult with employees in a collective redundancy situation. Section 11 of the Act sets out the penalties for the employer’s failure to consult and notify: a fine of up to €5,000 on summary conviction in respect of a breach of section 9 or section 10.

Discrimination and Equality Based Claims

Breaches of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 can see redress being ordered pursuant to section 82 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998:

Various orders including for re-engagement, re-instatement or compensation of up to 2 years’ remuneration or €40,000, whichever is the greater.

€13,000 can be awarded in contravention of the law in relation to a discriminatory claim in relation to access to employment.

Equal Status Acts Breaches

Equal status breaches can be penalised in accordance with the Equal Status Act, 2000. This protects you in relation to discrimination in respect of the supply of goods or services.

The maximum amount that can be awarded is the amount of the District Court limit in civil cases in contract (€15,000).

Minimum Wages

The National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 protects employees in relation to minimum wage rates. Complaints can be dealt with under section 26 of the act. The adjudication officer can order that the shortfall be rectified and paid to the employee, and the employee can also be awarded reasonable costs in respect of bringing the claim.

The employer can also be prosecuted in the District Court for breaches of this minimum wage act.

Health and Safety

Breaches of the Safety Health and Welfare Act 2005 can see an adjudication officer awarding compensation of such amount as he feels equitable in the circumstances for breach of section 27 of the act, which protects employees from penalisation or dismissal for making a complaint in respect of health and safety in the workplace.

Conclusion

The list above is not definitive, but certainly covers the most common types of employment law claim that will be brought to the WRC (Workplace Relations Commission), or Labour Court. A WRC adjudicator has a wide range of discretion for breaches of any particular act, so the various acts referred to above set out the maximum awards possible.