Vol. 395 No. 9
19 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to an equality case (details supplied) where a woman was refused employment because she was pregnant; if he will take effective action to ensure that such statutory rights for women are protected; if he will enter into discussions with the Labour Court to ensure clarity in relation to the protection of such rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to criticism expressed by the Employment Equality Agency of a recent decision of the Labour Court regarding the case of a woman whose offer of a job was withdrawn by the Quinnsworth supermarket group when they discovered that she was pregnant; if he intends to strengthen the legislative measures to prevent discrimination of this nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 37 together.
I have carefully studied the case mentioned by the Deputies. The case was considered by the Labour Court following an appeal against the finding of an equality officer. On the basis of the facts the court found against the appellant.
I am satisfied that the criticism to which the Deputy refers is not a reflection on the legislation and that the legislation as drafted is satisfactory. The question of the interpretation of the legislation is a matter for the agencies concerned and the law courts if appealed further.
Would the Minister agree he has the primary role to give guidance to both the Labour Court and the Employment Equality Agency in relation to how statutory rights for women are interpreted and that the interpretation in this case was an outrageous breach of a woman's statutory rights in relation to employment?
Let me say, not to avoid answering the question, that there is a possibility that this case will be appealed further so I do not want to get into all the details of the case.
The Minister is not in danger of breaking his own leg, is he?
I hope not. When I read the case, as the Deputy did, it seemed at first hand very simple and straightforward and hard fact on the individual concerned but it is not so straightforward when one examines the facts in detail. The legislation and the various sections of the legislation would cover this and similar cases of either direct discrimination or indirect discrimination. When the full facts are looked at, the reference to the breaking of the leg is not perhaps as crude as it sounded initially. I have to say that in fairness to the very experienced people involved in the equality section who deal with very complex cases every day. Following investigations by both the equality officer and the Labour Court, the issue is not a question of comparison between a healthy female worker and a sick male but a matter of an employee temporarily unable to take up employment on the date offered. That was the issue in the final analysis. It was not a question of direct discrimination.
Will the Minister agree that if the principle which in this case came down against the woman in question was to be applied to the female workforce in general we could have an outrageous situation in relation to statutory rights, and that he must, in anticipation of any legal action, issue very clear guidelines on the Government's policy on this? What is the Minister's policy in relation to this? Must every female applicant for a job indicate the likelihood of her pregnancy in the first year of employment? Is that the conclusion for female applicants for jobs?
It is not. Let me say again to the Deputy that I would like to give all the details but if I gave all the details it would not be helpful to some parties involved.
The case was in my constituency.
Therefore, I would not want to give all the details. It is not straightforward. There is a conflict of evidence both by the employer's side and the employee's side on the position. Having said that, let me say the equality officer came down on the side of the employee on the issue of the conflicting information. Maybe the analogy of the broken leg was somewhat unfortunate but that came into it because of a similar case which happened recently and the decision was if in those circumstances it had been a pregnant woman and a person with a broken leg the same thing would have happened. The person was not available for work on a certain date. That was a decision by the equality officer and the Labour Court. It was a judgment they made on the case in front of them. It was not against a pregnant woman.
That is not the way it is reported
I do not disagree with the Deputy on what I read, but I spent a considerable time on it because I felt that I should, as the Deputy said at the outset, look at it in detail. It is not a straightforward case.
I, too, have read the findings. Let me ask the Minister, without prejudice to any appeal being contemplated, is it not preposterous that language should be used to describe an application from a pregnant woman that somehow makes her equivalent to a male with a broken leg, that that preposterous description manifests that the old male chauvinist attitudes have not died in the Labour Court and that it ought to be the subject of an inquiry by the Minister's Department because of the implications it has for thousands of women?
That is precisely why I inquired into it. I have to defend my people in the Labour Court. I know the full case. That is the way it came across in public but it is not what happened at the hearing. The issue was a matter of employees who are temporarily unable to take up employment on the day offered. That is what the issue came down to. It was unfortunate the analogy was ever introduced.
Would the Minister agree that there is an argument where it is an employer taking over a business that had run into difficulties as to whether the EC instrument of transfer of ownership should apply and that in those circumstances the woman concerned, and the workers concerned, ought to have rights under the unfair dismissals legislation in matters like this?
I think that is a slightly separate point but, when the case is read, and examined and the information is given, it will be seen that the equality officer, a very experienced person, did not make a straight, blatant decision as it seemed. It was based on people not being available to take up work on a certain date, not of discrimination against a pregnant woman. That was not the intention of the equality officer in any way.
