Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997

Vol. 477 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Employment Equality Bill, 1996: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Acting Chairman

I note that amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 1 and I propose that they be taken together by agreement.

I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

Section 2: In page 8, line 25, "loss" deleted and "absence" substituted.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are technical. They replace the word "loss" with the word "absence" where it occurs in the definition of disability in section 2. These amendments achieve a common wording for disability in this Bill and the Equal Status Bill, 1977. That Bill's terminology is being adopted here as it is reckoned to be the most comprehensive. The term "loss" implies that the function concerned existed at some time in the past for that individual. However, the term "absence" covers persons who are born without the function as well as those who may have lost the function since birth.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:

Section 2: In page 8, line 26, "loss" deleted and "absence" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 6: In page 13, between lines 6 and 7, the following inserted:

"(4) The Minister shall review the operation of the Act, within two years of the date of the coming into operation of this section, with a view to assessing whether there is a need to add to the discriminatory grounds set out in this section.".

This amendment provides for the review of the legislation in the next two years to determine whether there is a need to add to the nine discriminatory grounds already covered by the Bill. This amendment is in response to proposals made in the Seanad and supported by Opposition amendments for addition to the existing list of nine grounds of the political opinion ground and the trade union membership ground.

The introduction of a political opinion ground would require detailed preparatory work which would only delay the Bill. Consideration would have to be given to a range of complex issues such as the limits on political activity in some branches of the public service including the Defence Forces and the Garda. Account would also have to be taken of the need for an exclusion to cater for existing practices relating to the operation of party political preferences for a diversity of appointments, particularly public service appointments. The issue of indirect discrimination with regard to this ground would also have to be carefully examined. Are there circumstances where a person's involvement in some non-political party organisation, for example, the GAA or the IFA might be construed as indirectly discriminating on the ground of political opinion, if, for example, the organisation concerned might be shown to have a preponderance of members of a particular political persuasion at a location or at a particular time?

There are also serious difficulties in adding the trade union membership ground to the Bill. For example, consideration would have to be given to the implications for closed shop or other collective agreements. There are constitutional issues too, concerning the right to associate and the converse, the right to dissociate. The question of trade union recognition is one that has remained unresolved over the years in industrial relations. Apart from its constitutional law aspect, it is one about which employer and trade union interests have different views. Anti-discrimination legislation of the type before the House today may not be the appropriate vehicle to deal with this legally and historically fraught issue. However, if this ground was added to the Bill the greatest difficulty arising would be the implications for collective bargaining generally. Where a trade union negotiated a rate of pay for work or conditions of employment in respect of a category or grade of workers, other workers not belonging to that trade union could resort to pursuing equal pay or similar conditions with the union workers on the basis that the pay rates or conditions were discriminatory. This would represent a major upheaval in Irish collective bargaining arrangements. It would invite employees to pursue future enhancements in pay and conditions through the equality redress system rather than by collective bargaining. In view of the complexity of the issues involved any expansion in the scope of the Bill would demand careful review. The amendment gives a firm legislative commitment to such action.

I support this amendment. Two years is an adequate review period. However, the Minister has highlighted the complexities of the political opinion and trade union membership grounds so it may not be possible to complete the review within two years. A review of other areas would also be welcome. Are there other sections which might be included in this review in addition to the nine grounds which the Minister has mentioned?

This amendment reflects an amendment the Minister made to the Equal Status Bill on Committee Stage. Not withstanding that I was disappointed he did not accept the amendments to the political opinion ground and the trade union membership ground and extend the remit of the Bill, we will have a review of the operation of the Act. Two years should be a sufficient period within which to complete that review. However, there are other grounds which it may be appropriate to examine. It is positive if people are aware that a review mechanism exists. This is an improvement on the original provisions and I support this amendment.

I thank the Deputies for their comments. I agree there may be other grounds apart from the political opinion ground and the trade union membership ground which may need to be reviewed. The scope of the amendment is broad enough to cover other appropriate grounds. Any future Minister for Equality and Law Reform will keep an open mind during the two year period on issues which may arise and on representations made. Two years is an adequate period within which to assess the operation of the Bill, how the existing grounds have worked and whether further grounds should be added.

On a point of information, is there a guillotine on Report Stage? It has come to my attention that amendment No. 30 is causing some concern. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the equality service has been taken from the Labour Relations Commission. We may not reach this section because of the guillotine.

Acting Chairman

We have to go through the amendments in sequence.

I understand that point and this is why I have raised this issue. Will the Minister agree to a debate on this amendment? I only received these amendments recently.

Acting Chairman

If we go through the other amendments quickly we will get to the amendment.

I agree but this is amendment No. 30 and it is causing concern. There has been a great deal of co-operation throughout the passage of this Bill. This amendment was raised last night by IBEC and ICTU. I hope the Minister will explain why this service has been taken from the Labour Relations Commission and given to the Department of Equality and Law Reform. I am sure he has an adequate explanation.

Acting Chairman

Officially we must go through all the amendments. Perhaps the Minister might refer to it when commenting on a different amendment.

I am happy to do whatever is considered most appropriate.

Acting Chairman

Technically, the Minister would be out of order but perhaps he could give a quick explanation?

I will look at the amendments, however, in view of the guillotine we will have to go through them quickly.

Acting Chairman

We cannot jump ahead.

Perhaps we could allow five minutes for a discussion of this amendment.

Acting Chairman

If the Deputies quickly agree to the amendments we will get to amendment No. 30 in five minutes.

Shall we agree to reserve some time for discussion of the amendment? I have no objections to most of the Minister's amendments.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 30 can be discussed with amendment No. 24.

I understand the time frame involved but some of the Minister's replies may leave no room to discuss this amendment.

Acting Chairman

With a little luck we will get to amendment No. 30.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 21, 26, 39 and 40 are related and may be taken together by agreement? Agreed. There is a misprint in amendment No. 26. The reference to "substituted" should read "inserted".

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

Section 8: In page 14, line 40, after "he", "or she" inserted.

These amendments arise from Seanad amendments seeking gender neutral language in the Bill. I am grateful to that House for correctly seeking these drafting changes.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5.

Section 15: In page 19, line 8, after "his", "or her" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6.

Section 15: In page 19, line 22, after "his", "or her" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:

Section 16: In page 20, between lines 20 and 21, the following inserted:

"(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), that subsection applies in particular where the employment concerned involves access to minors or to other persons who are vulnerable.".

This amendment adds a new subsection to section 16. The subsection seeks to clearly illustrate that the scope of section 16.4 which deals with unlawful sexual behaviour applies particularly to employments which are for access to children and other vulnerable people.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We come to Seanad Amendment No. 8. I note that Seanad amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive and 14 to 19, inclusive, are related and suggest they be discussed together by agreement.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:

Section 23: In page 23, line 40, after "employed", "(in this section referred to as `the workplace')" inserted.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive, and 14 to 19, inclusive, amend the sexual harassment provisions of sections 23 and 32 of the Bill and are a response to concerns expressed in both Houses about aspects of these sections. Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 16 to 19, inclusive, are the substantive amendments. In the normal course I would have gone through each in detail but, in view of the shortage of time, I will refrain from doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:

Section 23: In page 23, line 42, "at that place" deleted and "in the workplace" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:

Section 23: In page 24, lines 8 to 19 deleted and the following substituted:

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) in its application in relation to the workplace and the course of A's employment, if, in a case where one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection is fulfilled—

(a) B sexually harasses A, whether or not in the workplace or in the course of A's employment, and

(b) A is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of A's employment by reason of A's rejection or acceptance of the sexual harassment or it could reasonably be anticipated that A would be so treated,

then, for the purposes of this Act, the sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by A's employer, on the gender ground, in relation to A's conditions of employment.

(3) For the purposes of this Act,—

(a) any act of physical intimacy by B towards A,

(b) any request by B for sexual favours from A, or

(c) any other act or conduct of B (including, without prejudice to the generality, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material),

shall constitute sexual harassment of A by B if the act, request or conduct is unwelcome to A and could reasonably be regarded as sexually, or otherwise on the gender ground, offensive, humiliating or intimidating to A.".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:

Section 23: In page 24, lines 23 and 24, "at the place where A is employed" deleted and "in the workplace" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:

Section 23: In page 24, all words from and including "practicable" in line 30 down to and including line 31 deleted and the following substituted:

"practicable—

(a) In a case where subsection (2) applies, to prevent A being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of A's employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse the effects of it; and

(b) In a case where subsection (1) applies (whether or not subsection (2) also applies) to prevent B from sexually harassing A (or any class of persons of whom A is one).".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:

Section 25: In page 25, line 21, "that", where it firstly occurs, deleted.

This is a drafting amendment merely to delete the word "that" which had been unnecessarily duplicated.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:

Section 32: In page 30, line 4, after "employed", "(in this section referred to as `the workplace')" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:

Section 32: In page 30, line 7, "at that place" deleted and "in the workplace" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:

Section 32: In page 30, between lines 17 and 18, the following inserted:

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) in its application in relation to the workplace and the course of C's employment, if, in a case where one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection is fulfilled—

(a) E harasses C by reference to the relevant characteristic of C, whether or not in the workplace or in the course of C's employment, and

(b) C is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of C's employment by reason of C's rejection or acceptance of the harassment or it could reasonably be anticipated that C would be so treated,

then, for the purposes of this Act, the harassment constitutes discrimination by C's employer, in relation to C's conditions of employment, on whichever discriminatory ground is relevant to persons having the same relevant characteristic as C.

(3) Section 23 (3) applies in relation to subsection (1) (c) with the substitution for any reference to A of a reference to C.".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:

Section 32: In page 30, line 20, "as C" deleted and the following substituted "as C;

and any reference in this section to the relevant characteristic of C (or the same relevant characteristic as C) includes a reference to what E believes to be the relevant characteristic of C".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 18:

Section 32: In page 30, lines 24 to 26, "a reasonable person would consider the action or other conduct to be, in relation to the relevant characteristic of C" deleted and "the action or other conduct is unwelcome to C and could reasonably be regarded, in relation to the relevant characteristic of C, as" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:

Section 32: In page 30, all words from and including "practicable" in line 31 down to and including line 33 deleted and "practicable —

(a) In a case where subsection (2) applies, to prevent C being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of C's employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse the effects of it; and

(b) In a case where subsection (1) applies (whether or not subsection (2) also applies), to prevent E from harassing C (or any class of persons of whom C is one)" substituted

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We come to amendment No. 20. I observe that amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related and suggest that all three be discussed together by agreement.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:

Section 35: In page 32, lines 28 and 29, "special rate of remuneration for particular work" deleted and "particular rate of remuneration for work of a particular description" substituted.

These amendments seek to redraft references in section 35 in so far as they relate to rates of remuneration in a more sensitive and appropriate way. The purpose of the section is to facilitate the employment of people who have a restricted capacity to do the same amount of work as other employees.

The amendments replace references to a "special rate of remuneration" with references to a "particular rate of remuneration" where they occur to describe the pay of people with disabilities.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:

Section 35: In page 32, line 30, after "his", "or her" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:

Section 35: In page 32, line 32, "the work" deleted and "work of that description" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:

Section 35: In page 32, line 44, "special" deleted and "particular" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We come to Seanad amendment No. 24. I observe that amendments Nos. 25, 29 to 32, inclusive, 35, 37, 42 and 43 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:

Section 38: In page 35, lines 29 to 47 and in page 36 lines 1 to 11 deleted and the following substituted:

"(2) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall appoint a person to be the Director of Equality Investigations to perform the functions conferred on the Director by or under this Act or any other enactment.

(3) The office of the Director shall consist of the Director and such staff as, subject to subsection (4), may be appointed by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to assist the Director in carrying out the Director's functions; and the Director and the persons so appointed to the staff of the Director shall be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, and the Civil Service Regulations Acts, 1956 and 1958.

(4) Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this subsection, was holding office as an equality officer of the Labour Relations Commission shall, at that commencement and by virtue of this subsection, become, as an equality officer, a member of the staff of the Director.

(5) From among the Director's staff the Director may —

(a) appoint persons to be equality officers; and

(b) appoint persons, including those who are equality officers (whether by virtue of subsection (4) or of appointment under paragraph (a)), to be equality mediation officers;

and the Director may delegate any function conferred on the Director by or under this Act or any other enactment to an equality officer or equality medication officer.

(6) The Director, equality mediation officers and equality officers shall be independent in the performance of their functions.".

This group of amendments deals with the redress mechanisms under the Bill.

Section 38 already provides for the appointment of a Director of Equality Investigations under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission to investigate cases of first instance and to issue binding decisions. I am amending that section to provide, through the director, a single publicly identifiable forum for redress, both for discrimination cases arising under this Bill and under the Equal Status Bill, 1997. To this end the amendments provide for the establishment of an independent statutory office under the aegis of my Department to deal with discrimination cases whether in the area of employment or in the provision of goods, services or facilities.

A provision to establish these redress arrangements for both Bills was contained in the Equal Status Bill, 1997 as initiated, but I consider this Bill to be the more appropriate vehicle for these amendments.

Amendment No. 24 is the main substantive amendment which gives effect to these new arrangements. Amendments Nos. 25, 29 to 32, inclusive, and Nos. 35 and 37 are related technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 effect the necessary consequential amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and to section 29 of this Bill which deals with codes of practice.

I know that both ICTU and IBEC are concerned that redress and employment equality cases should remain within the ambit of the Labour Relations Commission. I met representatives of both organisations on Monday last and listened carefully to their concerns. The issue they pressed with me was the need for a continued industrial relations focus in employment equality cases. I explained to them that, in taking the decision to provide a single forum for redress of first instance under both Bills, I too was conscious of the need to have a labour relations context for these cases. Accordingly, the Labour Court is being retained as the court of appeal in cases arising under the Bill which are decided at first instance by the director.

In addition, I provided that dismissal cases, those most likely to have strong industrial relations implications, will continue to fall to the Labour Court for redress at first instance. Furthermore, my proposals ensure that the expertise in dealing with discrimination in employment, being developed by the equality service, will be utilised in the context of the present legislative proposals. The new section 38 (4) allows for the assignment of equality officers from the Labour Relations Commission to work in the office of the director.

I believe this initiative will give good value for public money in the new circumstances in which redress must be provided under two equality Bills, that it represents a sensible concentration of resources and will facilitate a high quality service.

I am also concerned to provide one locus for complainants initiating discrimination cases and to aid the development of appropriate consistency and coherence in the case law merging under both Acts. In providing a single locus for redress, I am also conscious of the special needs of some of the groups catered for by the Bill. It is desirable, on economic as well as other grounds, to develop a single centre of excellence in this regard rather than seek to provide the necessary specialised resources in both locations.

Other concerns of ICTU and IBEC were that the new redress mechanism may give rise to unnecessary confusion and duplication in the enforcement of employment rights. I must say that the impetus from my decision to provide a single redress mechanism for both the Employment Equality and Equal Status Bills is also motivated by a concern to avoid unnecessary confusion and duplication of redress procedures. In this Bill I want to avoid a duplication of service, the Labour Relations Commission providing redress in employment discrimination cases on grounds of sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community and, in the case of the Equal Status Bill, a separate service providing redress on the same nine discriminatory grounds in the provision of goods, services and facilities. I am convinced that such a state of affairs would give rise to more public confusion and duplication of public financial resources than that proposed in these amendments.

It should also be noted that there exists at present a diversity of redress arrangements under labour law, including, for example, the Employment Appeals Tribunal in redundancy and dismissal cases, the Circuit Court in dismissal appeals cases, the District Court in holidays cases, the Rights Commissioner service in maternity and payment of wages cases, the Labour Relations Commission in employment equality cases and the Labour Court in a wide range of industrial relations matters. My proposals will have little impact on this broad array of options which has grown up as part of our industrial relations environment.

Last evening the Labour Relations Commission issued a press statement on these proposals in which it maintained it was not consulted about the proposed changes with regard to the Director of Equality Investigations, an issue which I am sure Members will accept is primarily one for another Minister. However, the provision before the House was the subject of approval by Government. The provision first appeared in sections 57 and 58 of the Equal Status Bill 1997, as initiated on 5 February last. I have examined carefully the points raised by ICTU and IBEC and have met them to discuss the issues involved. I am satisfied regard has been had to their concerns in the amendments before the House.

I appreciate what the Minister has done on the issues of equality and the marginalised in society during his tenure of office. I have no hesitation in saying that and wishing him well in whatever direction his life takes.

I thank the Deputy. That is appreciated.

I do not agree with the removal of the equality section from the Labour Relations Commission. The Minister talked about providing one focus, one conduit, whereby issues of equality and redress under equality law would be directed and said that was the purpose of what he was doing. The Minister is diluting the considerable strengths and powers of the Labour Relations Commission and its clout in dealing with such issues. To take away this section diminishes the authoritative way in which the whole issue of redress against employment wrongs is viewed. Why should one seek to separate the equality part from all the other admirable duties which the Labour Relations Commission carries out? The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, should not have conceded to the request from the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. Rooted in all of this is an attempt by the Department of Equality and Law Reform to gain powers and, therefore, ensure the Department remains when the Minister has left the office. I do not know what the future holds and I make no forecast, but from an employment point of view the rights of people in employment and those who have been wronged by employers, the system or whatever, the removal of a section of redress from the Labour Relations Commission to another agency, albeit independent, is the wrong way to proceed. The Labour Relations Commission has built up considerable expertise, knowledge and acumen in dealing with employment issues and issues of redress and I strongly oppose what is being proposed.

I was disturbed on receiving correspondence from the Labour Relations Commission since it insists there has not been a consultation process. On all the equality legislation the Minister has dealt with, he has had a great deal of consultation with the various bodies. It is a matter of grave concern that the Labour Relations Commission believes it has not been consulted on this amendment. I am concerned that we are receiving news that the commission views this as a serious industrial relations matter, that it is not a question of the commission simply losing a service but of placing an important employment investigation service outside the ambit of the specialised employment industrial relations arena. At this late stage it is difficult to know what impact we can have. This matter should be open to further discussion and consultation. At this eleventh hour the Minister should reassure the House, since it was not clear from his response that there was adequate consultation with the Labour Relations Commission.

I will be opposing this amendment. According to the letter from Catherine Forde, chairperson of the Labour Relations Commission, it is apparent the Minister did not consult it. The Minister is seeking to remove the semi-autonomous status of the Labour Relations Commission and bring it back into the Civil Service under the Employment Equality Agency.

It has nothing to do with the Employment Equality Agency.

It is being brought within the ambit of the Civil Service.

Why set up another body? We have the Labour Relations Commission.

Because that deals with employment matters and this will deal with eight other grounds of discrimination against people on issues not involving employment.

I understand that. Amendment No. 3 to section 6 provides: "The Minister shall review the operation of the Act, within two years of the date of the coming into operation of this section,...". Is it possible for the Minister to accede to that amendment which has been passed and delete this section so that it can be discussed further at a later stage in order that we would fully understand its implications? The Minister has an opportunity under his own amendment to agree to review the section in two years. In view of the time constraint I will be opposing this amendment.

Acting Chairman

Since the time permitted for this debate has expired I am required to put the following Question, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Seanad amendments not disposed of are hereby agreed to in committee and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House and that the Dáil hereby agrees with the committee in its report.".

This legislation which we have finally passed is the most significant contribution to prohibiting discrimination in employment since the first anti-discrimination Act 23 years ago. I am glad to have been able to bring to a successful conclusion a commitment made by the Government and the previous Government to introduce legislation to provide protection on a wide range of grounds to outlaw discrimination.

The Bill responds to the radical change which is taking place in Irish society. Discrimination in employment often weighs disproportionately on those who are already marginalised in our society — members of the travelling community, older people and people with disabilities. I am convinced if real progress is to be made in the future we must focus on positive action to integrate women and other disadvantaged workers into the labour market.

This employment equality legislation is one essential tool to help redress disadvantage. I am pleased to have sponsored this Bill and the Equal Status Bill which, when enacted, will give Ireland one of the most modern equality codes in Europe.

I thank sincerely all Members of both Houses for their constructive contributions and proposals for improving the Bill, many of which have resulted in subsequent Government amendments to the Bill. The whole process has been beneficial in shaping key provisions in the Bill.

I express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the dedicated staff of my Department who have worked hard in recent months and long into the night to ensure the passage of the Bill and its amendments through all Stages. Their work in this regard is much appreciated.

We welcome also the passage of this Bill into law, despite the hiccups at the last minute. I congratulate the Minister and his staff on what has been complicated legislation. Taken in tandem with the Equal Status Bill and the overlapping that ensued, one cannot but congratulate the Minister, his staff and all concerned when the Bill is finally passed.

I would like to be associated with those remarks. This is complex legislation. I congratulate the Minister. He is retiring from politics and it must be wonderful for him to see one of the most important Bills with which he was involved being brought to a successful conclusion. We had a long debate about many issues on Committee Stage. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for taking on board the views of the Opposition parties. He was willing to accept amendments although he did not go as far as I would have liked on some matters.

This is complex and difficult legislation and I acknowledge the amount of work involved in drafting it. I congratulate the staff of the Department who worked long and hard. The many amendments confirm that the Bill was even more complex than we thought initially. I hope it will go a long way towards eradicating discrimination in society and particularly against women in the workplace.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share