Permanent TSB told to pay €45,000 to worker for gender discrimination

Tuesday 22 June 2010

A female worker in Permanent TSB, which is the banking arm of Irish Life and Permanent, was awarded over €45,000 by the Equality Tribunal for gender discrimination in relation to alternative working patterns.

Mary Higgins, a mother of five and a Mandate Trade Union member based in Cork, had applied to work part time hours under an alternative working pattern scheme. Permanent TSB denied Ms Higgins her application while at the same time allowing a male co-worker to avail of a four day week under the same scheme.

Ms Higgins, through her trade union Mandate, referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 & 2004. The Equality Officer reviewing the case, Bernadette Traynor, found that “…the decision making process in selecting candidates for the award of an alternative working patterns was unfair and lacking in transparency. The process operated to the advantage of a man in that the man was granted an alternative attendance pattern.”

Mandate’s Divisional Organiser for the Southern Division, Lorraine O’Brien said, “Ms Higgins is obviously delighted with the Equality Tribunal’s decision following a very long and drawn out process. We referred the claim to the Tribunal nearly five years ago under an indirect discrimination claim on the grounds of gender. However, the Equality Officer in charge of the investigation felt that the actions of Permanent TSB constituted direct discrimination against our member and found in her favour.

“We hope this will go someway towards compensating Ms Higgins following the discrimination she encountered and the subsequent stress she has encountered since making the claim.”

Explaining the case, Ms O’Brien said that, “When Ms Higgins was told by a letter sent to her by Permanent TSB that her application had been refused, she was given no reason as to why she was not chosen and her male colleague had been.

“Permanent TSB, during the hearing, stated that the complainant’s work was satisfactory as was the male employee’s. In relation to the other criteria both applicants were also satisfactory.”

According to the Equality Officer, Bernadette Traynor, “When asked during the hearing how the successful applicant was chosen in a situation where both appear equally suitable, the respondent (Permanent TSB) clearly stated that the level of each applicant’s performance appraisal and the attendance pattern requested would be used to reach a decision. As the male employee was selected for alternate working pattern something must have prompted his selection even though the original criteria listed appeared to be satisfied by both applicants.”

She continued, “It became evident that at the time the decision was made by the respondent as to who should be granted the alternate working pattern, no appraisal in respect of the complainant for 2004 was in existence. She had been on maternity leave and parental leave for much of the year.

“The respondent did not indicate that there were any problems in respect of the complainant’s performance in 2004. Therefore a decision was made in relation to performance in a situation where no appraisal of the complainant existed for the relevant period.”

“The second deciding criteria used by the respondent in the event of a tie was the pattern of attendance applied for. The complainant requested to work a part-day, every day. The male applicant requested a four day week. This is not a criteria listed in the original invitation for applications… This criteria was decided upon after the applications were received. In other words a deciding selection criteria was applied by the respondent after it was in possession of the applications.”

The Tribunal concluded that the, “deciding criteria created a situation decidedly lacking in transparency and fairness and that this was compounded by the refusal letter sent to the complainant… I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of direct discrimination which the respondent has failed to rebut. In this regard the complainant’s allegations of discrimination are successful and I hereby order the respondent to pay her €45,000 for the effects of discrimination.”