MJ O'Connor Solicitors

The Brief

28.04.2009

Goode Concrete Case. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

In April 2008 the Equality Tribunal issued a decision in the case of 58 names Complainants against Goode Concrete Limited DEC-E2008-020.

The workers claimed that they had not received contracts; contracts which had been issued to them were in English. The Work force included fourteen separate nationalities. Documents were not produced in the different languages.

The Tribunal ruled that that the employees had been subject to discriminatory treatment due to race in relation to their contracts of employment and safety documents. The Equality Office made recommendations and ordered the Company to put in place clear procedures for ensuring that non-national employees understand their terms and conditions of employment and understand all safety documentation.

The Equality Officer stated that it could be considered reasonable for the respondent to provide employees with Contracts of Employment in either English or Russian which was a language common to some of the workers. Alternatively if the employer is not in a position to provide contracts in different languages the employer should undertake to have the contracts explained to all employees irrespective of nationality. This would mean that a translator acting on behalf of the employer (not a fellow employee) should explain the documents and employees should be asked to sign a document confirming that the contract has been explained to them.

This case was relied upon in relation to redundancies recently in the case of Leva Cilinska-Snepste –v- Rye Valley Foods DEC-E2009-001

The Company was making a number of redundancies including the Complainant who was pregnant at the time. The Company was aware of her pregnancy.

She took a case to the Equality Tribunal and alleged that she had been discriminated against on grounds of gender and race when being made redundant.

She claimed the meeting announcing the redundancy was conducted in English but later admitted it had been translated to Russian which she spoke.

While the Tribunal agreed that she had established a prima facia case it ruled against her. On the pregnancy issue however it rules that there were exceptional circumstances outside her pregnancy justifying her dismissal for redundancy. LIFO was applied and the Company had rebutted the claim of discrimination.

On the issue of translation the Tribunal found against her as she was a member of the union which negotiated the redundancies and admitted the meeting had been conducted in Russian which she understood.

The Tribunal observed that there may be a need for special measures in such situations with non-national workers and “applying the same procedural standards to a non-national worker…could amount to the application of the same rules to different situations and could in itself amount to discrimination.”

The case is illustrative of how a Company can work within the dictates of the Goode Concrete ruling, but does not really row back from that ruling.

An employer remains responsible to take reasonable steps to ensure contracts and procedures are understood by all employees.

Catherine O’Connor
M J O’Connor
April 2009

For further information please contact Catherine O'Connor on 053 91 22555 or coconnor@mjoc.ie

• « Back to The Brief