The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found that a woman’s dismissal was an act of victimisation, but did not uphold complaints of harassment and discrimination on grounds of race.
The complainant began work as a medical recruitment consultant with the respondent company in early 2017. Despite a promising start in exceeding her targets, it was contended that the Managing Director of the company advised the complainant that she needed to seem more Irish through her accent, use of language and by adopting a new name. The Managing Director also allegedly made offensive comments about the Indian sub-continent – where the complainant was from – including its people and culture.
The complainant was then summoned to a meeting in which her employer told her that he was unhappy with her work and claimed that she was not motivated enough. At this stage, the complainant made a comment suggesting dissatisfaction with having to change her name. The complainant was given a letter of termination the next day. The complainant then brought a complaint before the WRC on the grounds that she was harassed, discriminated against and victimised because of her race.
The employer claimed that the complainant did not make an effort in her work and avoided making business calls when possible. The Managing Director stated that he did not suggest to the complainant that she change her name, but did agree to her shortening her name. He claimed that the complainant requested a more Irish sounding name as she expressed fears that clients were prejudiced towards her when they heard her name.
In considering the matter of harassment, the WRC did not consider comments about traffic in a holiday destination or as to rudeness in an Indian call centre to be a comment on an entire race, nor that the respondent would not apply these descriptions to persons of a different nationality. In weighing up the conflicting evidence in relation to the name change, on the balance of probabilities the WRC could not find in favour of the complainant on the claim of harassment.
Similarly, the WRC did not find the facts sufficiently credible or significant to uphold the claim of discrimination. However, the WRC did find that the dismissal of the complainant was an act of victimisation. Despite the WRC not upholding the previous complaints, it was of the view that the statement of complaint made by the complainant at the meeting led to the employer ending her employment. The WRC concluded that there was a lack of fair procedures, and awarded compensation for victimisation based on six months’ salary.
Click here for the full judgment in Ishita Sanon v Bond Personnel Group Limited.